i.- 


Ill 

'  '3 

s 

M 

^ 

1 

Cibrarjo  of t^he  t:heological  ^tminary 

PRINCETON    .   NEW  JERSEY 
PRESENTED  BY 


The  Aui±ior 

BX  9428  .A5  G6  1914 
Good,  James  I.  1850-1924. 
The  Heidelberg  catechism  in 
its  newest  light 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2009  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/heidelbergcatechOOgood 


THE  HEIDELBERG   CATECHISM  IN  ITS 
NEWEST  LIGHT 


The  Heidelberg  Catechism 
In  Its  Newest  Light 


BY 

REV.  PROF.  JAMES  I.  GOOD.  D.  D..  LL.  D. 

OF  CENTRAL  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


AUTHOR  OF 

•ORIGIN  OF  THE  REFORMED  CHURCH  OF  GERMANY,"  "HISTORY  OF  THE 

REFORMED  CHURCH  OF  GERMANY,"  "HISTORY  OF  THE  REFORMED 

CHURCH    IN    THE    U.    S.,"    "HISTORY    OF  THE   REFORMED 

CHURCH  IN  THE  U.S.  IN  THE  NINETEENTH  CENTURY," 

"FAMOUS  WOMEN  IN  THE  REFORMED  CHURCH," 

"FAMOUS  MISSIONARIES  OF  THE  REFORMED 

CHURCH."  "FAMOUS   PLACES  OF  THE 

REFORMED  CHURCH,"  ETC. 


PHILADELPHIA 

PUBLICATION  AND  SUNDAY  SCHOOL  BOARD  OF  THE 

REFORMED  CHURCH  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 

19  14 


Entered,  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1914 
By  rev.  JAMES  I.  GOOD,  D.  D..  LL.  D. 

In  the  office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress  at  Washington 


PRESS   OF   BERGER    BROS.,    PHILADELPHIA 


PREFACE 


This  work  on  the  Heidelberg  catechism  is  intended 
to  give  the  new  light  that  has  been  thrown  on  the  cate- 
chism, mainly  within  the  last  fifty  years, — since  the  Ter- 
centenary Jubilee  was  held,  in  1863,  by  the  Reformed 
Church  in  the  United  States.  However,  it  also  includes 
some  light  previous  to  that  time,  but  which  does  not 
seem  to  have  attracted  the  attention  of  the  American 
writers  on  the  catechism. 

A  number  of  the  chapters  have  been  delivered  as 
Addresses  during  the  350th  Anniversary  of  the  Catechism. 
The  form  of  address,  therefore,  appears  in  a  number  of 
places,  especially  in  the  last  two  chapters.  Because  de- 
livered as  Addresses,  there  is  occasionally  a  reduplication 
of  thought  and  expression. 

The  author  is  especially  indebted  to  the  librarians  of 
the  libraries  of  the  Leyden  and  Utrecht  universities,  and 
also  of  the  Royal  Library  at  the  Hague,  Holland;  to 
private  docent  Charles  de  Erdos,  of  Debreczin,  Hungary ; 
Superintendent  Dusek,  of  Kolin,  Bohemia;  Rev.  Mr. 
Bekker,  a  Dutch  missionary  of  Java ;  Rev.  Mr.  Fliedner, 
of  Madrid,  Spain;  Rev.  Prof.  Wyckofif,  of  India;  Rev. 
Dr.  Schneder,  of  Japan ;  Revs.  Drs.  Amerman  and  Cham- 
berlain, of  the  Dutch  Reformed  Foreign  Mission  Board; 
Prof.  Miilinen,  of  Berne,  Switzerland ;  Rev.  Mr.  Rauws, 
of  the  Dutch  Missionary  Societies  of  Rotterdam ;  Rev.  Mr. 
Clark,  Superintendent  of  the  Methodist  Missions  of 
Rome ;  also  the  Church  Missionary  Society  of  London, 


vi  PREFACE 

and  Rev.  Mr.  Geist,  of  Riga,  Russia,  for  aid  given  on  the 
translations  of  the  catechism.  The  author  also  desires 
to  express  his  obligations  to  Rev.  A.  S.  Bromer  for  sug- 
gestions as  to  the  details  of  its  publication.  He  sends  out 
this  book  as  a  result  of  the  350th  Anniversary  of  the 
Catechism,  and  for  the  greater  glory  of  this  book,  which 
has  been  such  a  blessing  to  the  Reformed  Church  and 
the  world. 

P.  S. — The  author  would  call  attention  to  the  binding 
of  this  book  (blue  and  white),  which  were  the  colors  of 
the  Palatinate  and  of  Elector  Frederick  III.  The  shield 
in  the  corner  of  the  cover  is  the  shield  in  the  upper  right 
hand  corner  of  the  Palatinate  coat-of-arms,  printed  in 
black  and  white  in  the  title-page,  opposite  page  4. 


TABLE   OF  CONTENTS 

PART  I 

THE  WORLD-WIDE  CIRCULATION  OF  THE 
CATECHISM 

PAGE 

Chapter  1.    The  Translations  3 

"        2.    Interesting  Facts  Connected  with  the  Trans- 
lations       22 

PART  II 

THE  SOURCES  OF  THE  CATECHISM 

Chapter!.    The  Previous  Catechisms 39 

"        2.    The  Catechism  OF  Ursinus'  Boyhood 80 

"       3.    Peter  Ramus  and  his   Significance  for  the 

Catechism  102 

PART  III 

THE  AUTHORS  OF  THE  CATECHISM 

A — Elector  Frederick  III 

Chaptfr  1.    The  Conversion  of  Elector  Frederick  III  to 

the  Reformed  Faith  123 

"       2.    Is  there  a  Melancthon-Calvinistic  Theology.  173 
"        3.    The  Defense  of  the  Catechism  by  Elector 

Frederick  III  184 

B — Casper  Olevianus 

"       4.    The  Threatened  Martyrdom  of  Olevianus  at 

Treves  201 

C — Zachariah  Ursinus 

"        5.    Ursinus'  Conversion  to  the  Reformed 242 

"        6.    Crato  of  Crafftheim,  Ursinus'  Patron 255 

"       7.    The  University  Days  of  Ursinus 268 


viii  CONTENTS 

PART  IV 

CONCLUSION 

Chapter  1.    The  Peculiar  Significance  of  the  Publica- 
tion OF  THE  Catechism  in  1563 283 


ILLUSTRATIONS 

The  Square  of  Zocodover,  Toledo,  Spain Frontispiece 

Title-page  of  the  Original  Edition  in  the  German  Lan- 
guage   Opposite  page  4 

Title-pages  of  the  Latin  Translations Between  pages  10-11 

Title-page  of  the  Dutch  Translation Opposite  page  16 

"  "        French  Translation Opposite  page20 

"  "        Greek  Translation Opposite  page  24 

"  "        Polish  Translation Opposite  page  30 

"  "        Lithauanian  Translation. Opposite  page  36 

The  First  Answer  of  the  Italian  Translation. Opposite  page  40 

Title-page  of  the  Bohemian  Translation Opposite  page  46 

"  "        Romansch  Translation     .  .Opposite  page  50 

Title-pages  of  the  Malay  Translations.  .  .Between  pages  56-57 
The  First  Answer  of  the  Javanese  TRANSLATioN.Opposite  page  62 
Title-pages  of  the  Portuguese  TRANSLATioN.Between  pages  70-71 

Title-page  of  the  Singalese  Translation Opposite  page  76 

"  "        Tamil  Translation Opposite  page  84 

"  "        Chinese  Translation Opposite  page  90 

"  "        Japanese  Translation Opposite  page  96 

"  "        Sangiri  Translation Opposite  page  110 

"  "        Amharic  Translation Opposite  page  116 

"  "        Arabic  Translation Opposite  page  120 

"               "        Hungarian  Translation.  .Opposite  page  126 
"  "        Spanish  Translation Opposite  page  130 


PART   I 

THE  WORLD-WIDE  CIRCULATION  OF  THE 
CATECHISM 


The  Heidelberg  Catechism 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  TRANSLATIONS 

"The  Heidelberg  catechism,  next  to  the  Bible  and  the 
Pilgrim's  Progress,  is  the  most  widely  circulated  of 
books,"  is  the  remark  of  one  of  the  old  writers.  Whether 
this  estimate,  made  long  ago,  is  exactly  true  now  may 
be  questioned,  as  some  other  books  have  since  become 
widely  popular.  But  the  fact,  nevertheless,  remains  true; 
the  Heidelberg  catechism  is  one  of  the  most  widely  circu- 
lated books  in  the  world.  In  order  to  have  such  popu- 
larity the  catechism  had  to  be  translated  into  many 
languages.  Kocher,  a  century  and  a  half  ago,  and  Van 
Alpen,  a  century  ago,  tried  to  describe  its  history  and 
literature.  Since  then  we  do  not  know  of  any  one  who 
has  tried  to  describe  its  translations  in  any  thorough  way. 
And  yet  the  story  of  these  translations,  together  with  their 
history,  is  of  wonderful  interest  and  reveals  the  great 
popularity  of  the  book. 

The  original  language  of  the  Heidelberg  catechism 
was,  of  course,  the  German,*  because  it  was  composed  for 
use  in  a  German  state,  the  Palatinate,  in  southwestern 
Germany,  where  it  was  published  early  in  1563.  A  num- 
ber of  German  editions  appeared  in  that  year.     Their 

*  See  its  title-page  opposite  the  next  page. 


4  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

number  has  been  generally  given  as  four,  but  Rev.  Pro- 
fessor Goeters,  of  Bonn  university,  who  has  been  making 
researches,  has  found  other  editions  of  that  year. 

It  has  been  a  question  which  language  had  the  honor 
of  the  first  translation.  No  less  than  three  translations 
appeared  in  that  first  year.  Heretofore,  it  has  been  sup- 
posed that  the  Latin  version,*  made  by  Rev.  Mr.  Lagus, 
of  Heidelberg,  together  with  Professor  Pithopoeus,  of  the 
Latin  school  there,  was  the  first.  For  Latin  was  the  uni- 
versal language  of  that  day,  the  language  of  literature, 
commerce  and  diplomacy ;  and  so  the  catechism  was  early 
translated  into  that  language  for  use  in  the  higher  schools 
and  universities.  But  the  late  Professor  Doudes,  of  the 
University  of  Utrecht,  who  was  one  of  the  great  authori- 
ties on  the  catechism,  has  in  his  researches  unearthed  two 
Dutch  translations  of  1563,  one  published  at  Heidelberg. 
The  other  was  published  at  Emden,  that  Reformed  city  at 
the  northwestern  corner  of  Germany.  Now  this  Emden 
translation  was  made  from  the  second  edition  of  the 
catechism,  while  the  Latin  was  made  from  the  third  edi- 
tion. The  Emden  Church  may,  therefore,  have  made  this 
translation  before  the  third  edition  appeared.  The  truth 
probably  was  that  the  Reformed  Church  at  Emden,  the 
first  of  the  Reformed  Churches  in  Germany,  seems  to  have 
been  so  delighted  to  have  another  Reformed  Church  in 
Germany  that  it  did  not  wait  long,  but  hastened  to  put 
itself  under  the  powerful  protection  of  the  Elector  of  the 
Palatinate  by  publishing  his  catechism  in  Dutch,  which 
was  the  language  of  Emden  at  that  time,  so  that  it  might 
be  used  in  its  churches  and  schools.  From  these  facts  it 
looks  very  much  as  if  the  Dutch  translation  was  made 

*  See  two  Latin  title-pages :  one  of  1563,  the  other  of  1585, 
between  pages  10-11. 


Otechifmus 

©bet 

€§nTtltc6(r  VnbmicUi 

Icit  bet:  C^titfilrflUc^ert 

pr<)(B  gei^nebcrt 

w><rbt% 


<5cbti$dt  m  bet  Cbutfiitlili^ 

The   title-page  of   the   Heidelberg  catechism   in   the   German 
language   (the  original  language).     See  page  3. 


THE  TRANSLATIONS  5 

before  the  Latin.  But  whether  so  or  not,  the  catechism* 
soon  came  into  use  in  the  Netherlands,  for  in  1566  it  was 
used  in  Amsterdam  by  Peter  Gabriel,  in  spite  of  the  per- 
secutions of  that  time,  and  in  1568  it,  together  with 
Calvin's  catechism,  was  adopted  by  the  Dutch  synod  of 
Wesel.  Later  this  adoption  was  completed  by  the  action 
of  the  Dutch  synod  of  Dort  in  1574.  In  1618-1619  the 
General  Synod  of  the  Reformed  Churches  of  Europe,  also 
held  at  Dort,  adopted  it,  and  thus  virtually  made  it  the 
ecumenical  symbol  of  the  Reformed  Churches,  because 
that  synod  had  in  it  delegates  from  most  of  the  National 
Reformed  Churches.  This  Dutch  translation  is  now  used 
not  only  in  Holland  but  also  by  the  Boers  in  South  Africa, 
in  the  Dutch  East  Indies,  in  the  Dutch  West  Indies  and 
in  Dutch  Guiana  in  South  America. 

A  third  translation,  of  1563,  has  been  one  that  has 
caused  considerable  discussion.  This  translation  was 
made  into  the  German  language.  But  why,  if  the  cate- 
chism was  already  originally  in  German,  was  it  necessary 
to  translate  it  into  German.  That  has  been  the  interest- 
ing question.  The  title-page  of  this  translation  bears  the 
words,  "in  the  Saxon  language."  Prof.  Doudes,  who 
found  this  edition,  supposed  that  it  was  translated  into 
the  language  of  northern  and  eastern  Gennany  because 
the  North-German  was  different  from  the  South-German 
of  the  Palatinate,  the  original  language  of  the  catechism. 
And  some  very  interesting  questions  have  arisen  as  to 
why  Elector  Frederick  III  had  it  translated  into  a  dialect 
in  which  there  was  not,  at  that  time,  a  single  member  of 
the  Reformed  Church.  But  all  questioning  has  been  re- 
cently set  aside.  At  the  recent  meeting  of  the  Reformed 
Alliance  of  Germany,  at  Wesel,  where  we  showed  some 
parts  of  this  version,  they  pronounced  it  to  be  in  the  Platt- 

*  See  its  title-page,  opposite  page  16. 


6  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

Deutsch  dialect — that  is,  the  dialect  of  German  as  it  is 
spoken  on  the  borders  of  Holland.  And  this  translation, 
made  so  early,  explains  why  the  Reformed  faith  so 
quickly  took  hold  in  the  region  of  the  northern  Rhine,  as 
at  Wesel,  and  in  the  county  of  Berg,  around  Elberfeld. 

In  addition  to  these  three  translations,  made  in  1563, 
two  others  were  made  very  early,  and  they  were  made 
into  languages  far  distant  from  the  Palatinate,  and  widely 
separated  from  each  other.  All  this  only  shows  how 
quickly  the  Heidelberg  gained  popularity.  Far  off  to 
the  southeast,  a  translation  appeared  in  Hungarian.  The 
catechism  found  its  way  into  Hungary  because  of  the 
conflicts  there,  at  that  time,  about  the  Lord's  Supper. 
The  ministers  of  Kolesvar,  having  written  to  the  Heidel- 
berg theologians  about  their  strife,  the  latter,  in  sending 
their  reply,  sent  with  it  the  newly-issued  Heidelberg 
catechism.  From  that  time,  says  Szilaggi,  it  spread 
through  Hungary  with  the  rapidity  of  lightning.  It  sup- 
planted other  catechisms,  as  by  Batisius  and  Siderius,  and 
even  Calvin's  catechism.  In  1567,  the  Synod  of  De- 
breczin  ordered  it  to  be  used  in  the  churches  and  schools. 
The  first  translation,  made  at  Papa,  1577,  was  revised  by 
Rev.  Francis  Szarasy,  the  Reformed  pastor  at  Debreczin, 
in  1604,  and  was  still  further  revised  by  Molnar  and  pub- 
lished in  Germany  (at  Hanau,  1608,  and  Oppenheim, 
1612). 

Also  at  the  other  end  of  Europe,  far  to  the  northwest, 
a  translation  appeared  in  the  English  language,  made,  as 
it  says  on  the  title-page  of  the  edition  of  1572,  by  William 
Turner,  Doctor  of  Physic.  As  he  died  in  1568,  it  must 
have  been  made  before  that  time.  Thirlwall  mentions 
an  edition  of  1570.  Of  the  edition  of  1572,  there  is  a 
copy  in  the  British  Museum  and  another  in  the  Bodleian 
Library,  at  Oxford.     It  was  also  published  in  1578.     The 


THE  TRANSLATIONS  7 

publication  of  so  many  editions  in  so  short  a  time  shows 
that  it  very  quickly  gained  popularity  in  England. 

Thus,  within  five  years  after  its  publication,  the 
Heidelberg  had  been  already  translated  into  five  lan- 
guages. Then,  several  more  translations  appeared  before 
the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century.  Prof.  David  Parens, 
the  successor  of  Ursinus  as  professor  at  Heidelberg  uni- 
versity, states,  in  1633,  that  a  translation  of  the  Heidel- 
berg was  made  into  Hebrew  by  Tremellius,  the  converted 
Jew,  who  was  professor  of  Hebrew  at  Heidelberg  uni- 
versity. It  must  have  been  made  before  1580,  when  he 
died.  We  have,  as  yet,  been  unable  to  find  a  copy  of 
this  translation,  though  we  found  a  translation  by  Tre- 
mellius of  Calvin's  catechism  into  Hebrew,  made  before 
the  Heidelberg  was  published.  There  is  a  missionary 
suggestion  about  this  translation  of  the  Heidelberg.  Tre- 
mellius was  one  of  the  first  Protestants  to  be  interested 
in  the  conversion  of  the  Jews,  and  the  catechism  was 
translated  for  that  purpose.  It  was.  therefore,  the  se- 
cond attempt  by  Protestants  at  missions,  the  first  having 
been  made  by  Calvin,  in  Brazil,  in  1557. 

A  translation  into  the  French  language*  appeared  at 
Heidelberg  in  1570,  a  copy  of  which  is  to  be  found  in  the 
library  of  the  university  of  Leyden.  Although  the  Hei- 
delberg never  became  the  official  catechism  of  the  Re- 
formed Church  of  France,  which  used  Calvin's  cate- 
chism, yet  this  French  translation  was  used  in  the  Hugue- 
not churches  of  Germany  and  Holland,  and  also  in  the 
southern  part  of  the  canton  of  Bern,  where,  in  the  district 
of  Vaud,  the  French  language  was  used.  This  transla- 
tion was  also  used  in  Neuchatel. 

A  Greek  translation     was  also  made  in  the  sixteenth 

*  See  its  title-page,  opposite  page  20. 


8  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

century  by  Sylburg,  in  1597,  at  Heidelberg.  It  was  trans- 
lated into  Greek,  so  that  it  might  be  sent  to  the  Patriarch 
of  the  Greek  Church.  This  edition  was  later  published 
at  Geneva,  in  1609,  and  by  the  Elzevirs,  in  1648.  In 
fact,  there  were  two  translations  into  Greek,  this  one,  by 
Sylburg,  into  ancient  Greek,  and  another,  made  in  1648,* 
into  modern  Greek.  One  of  the  most  elegantly  bound 
translations  ever  published  was  this  edition  in  modern 
Greek.  It  was  published  by  the  Dutch  government,  and 
at  its  expense,  and  contained  also  the  Belgic  Confession 
and  the  Canons  of  Dort.  This  Greek  version  was  in- 
tended for  use  by  Greek  Christians.  At  that  time,  one 
of  the  burning  religious  questions  was,  "With  which 
Church  would  the  Greek  Church  ally  herself — the  Cath- 
olic or  the  Protestant?"  Cyril  Lucar,  patriarch  of  Con- 
stantinople, visited  western  Europe  and  became  deeply 
interested  in  the  closer  union  of  the  Greek  Church  with 
the  Protestant.  But  he  was  martyred,  and  the  old,  fos- 
silized Greek  Church  found  the  Romish  Church  more 
congenial.  All  this  shows  that  the  Dutch  government 
saw  its  opportunity  to  spread  the  Reformed  faith,  and 
were  quick  to  utilize  it  by  the  publication  of  the 
Heidelberg. 

Another  translation  was  the  Polish,!  made  by  Andrew 
Prasmovius.  It  there  became  popular,  notwithstanding 
that  Poland  had  already  two  or  three  excellent  catechisms. 
It  is  still  used  by  the  Reformed  Church  of  Poland,  which 
has  passed  through  so  many  persecutions  and  oppres- 
sions. There  was  also  a  translation  of  the  Heidelberg 
catechism  into  the  Lithauanian  language. $  Still  another 
translation,  made  in  the  reformation,  was  into  Italian.** 

*  See  its  title-page,  opposite  page  24. 
t  See  its  title-page,  opposite  page  30. 
t  See  its  title-page,  opposite  page  36. 
**  See  its  first  answer,  opposite  page  40. 


THE  TRANSLATIONS  9 

It   was  probably   used  by  the   Italian  Reformed  of  the 
Swiss  canton  of  the  Grisons,  southeast  of  Switzerland. 

We  thus  see  that,  by  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century,  \ 
only  a  little  over  a  quarter-century  after  its  first  publi-  / 
cation,  it  was  already  translated  into  eleven  languages :  ' 
Dutch,  Latin,  Saxon-German,  Hungarian,  English,  He- 
brew, French,  Greek,  Polish,  Lithauanian  and  Italian.    All 
this  only  reveals  the  unusual  popularity  of  the  book,  es- 
pecially when  w^e  consider  in  what  far-distant  lands  it  was 
published  and  how  it  supplanted  some  of  the  best  cate- 
chisms, as  Calvin's,  in  Hungary  and  Scotland ;  Pezel's,  at 
Bremen,  etc.     It  evidently  met  a  felt  want  of  the  Church 
by  its  remarkable  combination  of  head-  and  heart-piety,  or 
it  would  not  have  been  so  widely  and  quickly  adopted. 

The  seventeenth  century  was  also  a  great  century  of 
catechism  translations.  Among  the  first  translations  of 
this  century  was  that  in  the  Bohemian  language.*  It  was 
translated  by  James  Akantidb  Mitis,  in  Skramnik,  and 
published  1619,  when  the  unlucky  Elector  Frederick  V, 
of  the  Palatinate,  became  King  of  Bohemia.  Quite  a 
number  of  the  Hussites  who  had  been  previously  frater- 
nizing with  the  Reformed  now  became  openly  Reformed. 
Especially  did  Kuttenberg,  where  thousands  of  the  Hus- 
sites had  been  thrown  into  the  silver  mines  to  die,  be- 
come Reformed,  as  also  Kolin  and  other  cities.  Then 
came  the  awful  defeat  of  White  Mountain,  near  Prague, 
in  1620.  After  that  the  Protestants  suffered  untold  hor- 
rors for  more  than  a  century  and  a  half.  When,  in  1781, 
Protestantism  was  again  tolerated,  most  of  the  Hussites 
became  Reformed  and  the  catechism,  as  revised  in  1867, 
by  De  Tardy,  is  now  used  by  the  Reformed  Church  of 
Bohemia  and  Moravia. 

Another  translation  of  this  century  was  made  by  the 

*  See  its  title-page,  opposite  page  46. 


lo  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

Hungarians  into  the  Wallachian  (now  called  the  Ru- 
manian) language,  which  was  used  in  Transylvania.  It 
was  made  by  Stephen  Fogorasi,  pastor  of  the  Wallachian 
Reformed  Church,  at  Lugas,  in  1648.  But  it  never  ex- 
erted much  influence,  as  political  trouble  broke  out  in 
Transylvania  in  1660. 

A  translation  was  made  into  the  Romansch  language* 
— a  language  which  may  be  called  the  modern  Italian, 
and  is  still  spoken  in  the  district  of  the  Engadine,  in 
southeastern  Switzerland.  There  is  a  copy  of  this  cate- 
chism of  1613  in  the  British  Museum,  and  of  1686  in  the 
library  of  the  University  of  Utrecht  and  the  British  Mu- 
seum. It  displaced  Comander's  catechism,  which  had 
been  an  imitation  of  Leo  Juda's  catechism. 

Switzerland  also  reveals  its  acceptance  of  the  Heidel- 
berg catechism.  Notwithstanding  that  it  had  had  such 
excellent  catechisms  as  Leo  Juda's  and  Calvin's,  yet  the 
Heidelberg  displaced  them  everywhere,  except  Zurich, 
Basle  and  Geneva.  In  161 5,  the  canton  of  St.  Gall  offi- 
cially adopted  the  Heidelberg.  In  1616,  the  large  canton 
of  Bern  adopted  it,  which  led  to  its  introduction  also  into 
Vaud  and  Neuchatel.  And,  in  1663,  the  canton  of  Schaff- 
hausen  adopted  it.  Parts  of  it  were  also  used  in  the  Zu- 
rich catechism  of  1609. 

But  tt  was  especially  the  Dutch  who  were  prominent 
in  the  translation  of  our  catechism.  For  to  the  Dutch 
the  Heidelberg  was  the  great  symbol  of  Protestantism, 
and  they  aimed  to  spread  the  Reformed  faith  to  the  ends 
of  the  earth.  As  they  sailed  the  seas  over  to  the  far 
East  and  the  far  West,  they  nailed  the  catechism  to  their 
masthead  with  their  flag,  and,  with  Dutch  valor  and  suc- 
cess, proposed  to  conquer  the  world  for  it  and  Holland. 
The  Dutch  repeatedly  translated  it,  even  into  languages 

*  See  its  title-page,  opposite  page  50. 


C  A  T  E^ 

CHESIS    RELI^ 

GIONIS  CHRISTIAN 

NAB,  QVAE    TllADITVR 

i&  JBcdcfi/s  &  Scholis 

Paiatinacus. 

€9 


HEYDELBERGAE. 

Sscudebat  MichaelSchiiae* 
M.D.LXII1. 

The  title-page  of  the  Heidelberg  catechism  in  the  Latin 
language,  recently  found  by  Rev.  Prof.  Gneters  of  Bonn  uni- 
versity.    See  page  4. 


Catechesis 

Religionis 

C  H  R I S  T I A  N AE,  QV  AB 

TRADITVR    IN    ECCLESIIS 

ET    SCHOLIS     PALATINATVS: 

TESTlMOnilS  S.  IITE\J\VM.QJ'^ 

prim  ad  marginem  Hmitaxnt  cwit  iiuoicris  miata, 

J>kins  intcgns!j,htyttcu>ifvinata 

Cr  illujlrat.t. 

ACCE  SiERE 

C  E  K  S  V  R  \    T  l-I  E  O  L  O  G  O  R  V  M  C\VO- 

ruiii^aiii  in  hancCatcchclui ;  <3c 

CL.VI%^I     'J).  Z  AC  HA%I  ^    VT{SIN.I, 

Theolopifu'/n»ii>j'i'e»i(>»o>itf,<ti{ea-ii,acquteJiiones 

quafdam  de  (^ana  'Domini , 

RESPONSIO    ET    ARTICVLI,   QVlBVS 

comieniiiiit  acdi-fjidenC  in  Eucliarifticacontio, 
ucrfiaEcdcfia-  Euangelicj: 

CE\MJKICE  SCfyl'PTj;   ffylMFM: 
nunc  in  latinam  liiiguam  tr.mjlata. 

SvBiVNCTA      EST 

DIATRIBE    SEV    TRACT A  TVS   DE 

Vbiquitate  &  or.ill  nianducatioiiecar, 
nis  Chrifti: 

j;<J>lTA  IK   GllJ-TI^Af  IFFEKTrxIS 
\ere  pietatu,t^  pia  \eritati!  amnntti, 

SrVDlO    ET    OPERA    QVIRINI    ReVTERI    M, 

M.   D,  L  X  X.  X  V. 

Tlic    title-page    of    the    Heidelberg    catechism    in    the    Latin 
language.     See  oage  4. 


THE  TRANSLATIONS  n 

in  which  there  was  not  a  single  Protestant,  probably  in 
the  hope  that  it  would  make  some  of  them  Protestants. 
The  Dutch  East  India  and  West  India  Companies  had  it 
translated  into  the  different  languages  of  their  distant 
lands,  and  put  their  coat-of-arms  on  the  title-page.* 
This  is  quite  in  contrast  with  the  East  India  Company  of 
Great  Britain,  for  that  company,  for  a  long  time,  for- 
bade the  introduction  of  Christianity  into  its  colonies  for 
fear  of  exciting  the  hostility  of  the  heathen  natives.  Thus, 
when  William  Carey  went  to  India,  they  did  not  permit 
him  to  begin  work  in  their  colony,  and  he  was  com- 
pelled to  begin  missionary  work  in  the  Danish  East  In- 
dies. And  later,  when  Haldane  proposed  to  go  to  India, 
the  East  India  Company  would  not  permit  it.  In  fact, 
one  of  its  directors  once  uttered  the  almost  profane  ex- 
pression that  "he  would  rather  have  devils  than  mission- 
aries in  India."  What  a  contrast  between  the  English 
and  the  Dutch  East  India  Companies.  The  latter  had 
the  Heidelberg  catechism  translated  and  circulated  among 
the  natives  of  its  colonies.  With  true  Dutch  bravery 
they  never  acted  cowardly  before  their  natives,  like  the 
British  East  India  Company.  They  put  their  coat-of- 
arms  on  its  title-page.  They  sent  chaplains  to  their 
colonies,  many  of  them  to  become  missionaries.  Es- 
pecially in  the  East  Indies  they  did  a  great  missionary 
work,  of  which  we  of  the  English  language  make  too 
little.  We  hear  of  Ziegenbalg  and  Schwarz  in  India, 
great  missionaries  they  were,  but  they  were  not  by  any 

*  The  monogram  of  the  Dutch  East  India  Company,  N.  V. 
O.  C,  as  shown  in  our  plate  of  the  title-page  of  the  Singalese 
translation  of  the  Heidelberg,  is  generally  found  on  the  title- 
page  of  the  catechisms  published  for  the  East  Indies.  Those 
Dutch  Reformed  were  not  cowardly  or  afraid  of  their  heathen 
subjects  but  boldly  declared  their  Christian  faith. 


12  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

means  doing  as  great  a  work  as  the  Dutch  in  the  East 
Indias. 

The  Dutch  East  India  Company  had  the  Heidelberg 
catechism  translated  in  the  Malay  language,*  Kocher  says, 
in  1621,  but  the  first  edition  we  can  find  is  1623.  It  was 
translated  by  Rev.  Mr.  Danckaerts  and  published  at  the 
expense  of  the  East  India  Company.  Two  editions  of 
it  were  published  in  Latin  characters.  Then,  in  1746, 
a  very  curious  edition  appeared,  an  edition  in  the  Malay 
language,  but  printed  in  Arabic  characters. f  It  was  pub- 
lished by  the  Dutch  government,  and  made,  as  its  preface 
says,  for  the  use  of  the  Malay  pupils  in  the  seminary  at 
Batavia,  so  that  they  might,  in  their  own  characters,  be 
better  able  to  learn  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel.  This 
reveals  the  interesting  fact  that  the  Malays  seem  to  have 
had  no  written  language  of  their  own,  but  had  accepted 
the  language  of  their  Mohammedan  religion,  the  Arabic, 
as  their  own. 

The  Dutch  also  had  a  translation  made  into  the  lan- 
guage of  Java  by  Wilhelm,  but  in  what  year  we  do  not 
know.  A  new  edition  by  Janzif:  was  recently  published 
by  Rev.  Dr.  Bekker,  a  Javanese  missionary. 

The  Dutch  East  India  Company  also  had  the  cate- 
chism translated  and  published  in  the  Portuguese  lan- 
guage in  1665  (also  in  1689).**  This  is  also  a  significant 
translation,  for  there  was  not  a  single  Protestant  among 
the  Portuguese.  But  the  Dutch  were  courageous.  They 
proposed  to  make  them  Protestants  and  had  the  Heidel- 
berg ready  for  use  when  opportunity  offered.  O  how 
great  was  the   faith  of  the  Dutch   in  their  catechism ! 

*  See  its  title-page,  between  pages  56-57. 
t  See  its  title-page,  between  pages  56-57. 
X  See  its  first  answer,  opposite  page  62. 
**  See  their  title-pages,  between  pages  70-71. 


THE  TRANSLATIONS  13 

And  now  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  later,  Portugal,  at 
last  a  republic,  is  opening  up  to  the  Protestantism  of 
which  this  Heidelberg  catechism  was  a  long-ago  prophecy. 

But  an  even  more  interesting  translation,  of  which 
we  shall  say  more  presently,  was  the  translation  made 
by  the  Dutch  into  the  Spanish  language  and  published 
by  the  Dutch  government  in  1628.  It  was  intended  for 
use  in  its  colonies  in  the  West  Indias.  This  Spanish 
translation  has  been  for  centuries  a  sort  of  a  phantom. 
Parens,  early  in  the  seventeenth  century,  in  his  "History 
of  the  Palatinate,"  speaks  of  a  translation  for  the  West 
Indies,  but  does  not  tell  into  what  language  it  was  made. 
Oelrichs,  in  1793,  calls  attention  to  a  rare  translation  into 
the  Spanish  language.  Thus  the  Dutch  government  was 
ready  to  introduce  our  catechism  into  the  East  and  West 
Indies,  so  as  to  make  the  ends  of  the  earth  Reformed. 

The  eighteenth  century  was  not  so  prolific  in  the  trans- 
lation of  the  Heidelberg,  but  it  is  to  be  remembered  that 
the  eighteenth  century  was  the  century  of  rationalism, 
which  blighted  almost  everything.  Still  two  translations 
are  to  be  noted.  And  they  were  both  made  by  the  Dutch 
for  use  in  the  East  Indies.  The  first  was  a  translation 
into  the  Singalese  language,*  the  language  of  the  island 
of  Ceylon.  It  had  been  made  in  1726  and  was  printed 
by  the  East  India  Company,  at  the  suggestion  of  the 
Dutch  Reformed  Consistory  of  Colombo  in  the  island  of 
Ceylon.  It  was  made  by  William  Konyn,  and  published 
1 74 1   (also  1769  and  1780). 

A  second  translation  of  that  century  was  made  into 
the  Tamil  languagef  of  southern  India  by  Rev.  Mr. 
Bronsveld,  a  Dutch  minister  of  Colombo.  It,  too,  was 
published  by  the  Dutch  East  India  Company.    Its  preface 

*  See  its  title-page,  opposite  page  76. 
t  See  its  title-page,  opposite  page  84. 


14  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

is  dated  1754  and  there  was  another  edition  in  1766.  It 
is  still  used  by  the  Arcot  Mission  of  the  Dutch  Reformed 
Church  of  America,  the  mission  of  the  Scudders  and 
Dr.  Chamberlain.  There  is  a  catechism  of  1730  in  the 
library  of  the  University  of  Leyden.  It  is  catalogued  as 
in  the  Malabar  language,  but  is  really  in  the  Tamil  lan- 
guage. It  is  not  the  Heidelberg,  but  is  probably  based 
on  it,  as  it,  like  the  Heidelberg,  is  divided  into  three 
parts.  It  was,  according  to  its  preface,  published  by  the 
Dutch  of  Colombo. 

The  nineteenth  century  however  came  in  to  revive  the 
work  of  translating  the  Heidelberg  catechism.  This 
was  due  to  the  great  peculiarity  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury, namely  the  spread  of  foreign  missions.  A  trans- 
lation of  the  Heidelberg  was  made  into  the  Chinese 
language*  for  use  in  the  Amoy  mission  of  the  Dutch 
Reformed  Church  of  America.  It  was  made  in  the 
Chinese  colloquial  of  southern  China  and  was  printed, 
not  in  Chinese  characters,  but  in  Latin  letters. 

The  same  Church,  through  its  Foreign  Mission  Board, 
had  the  catechism  translated  into  the  Japanese  language. 
And  there  was  later  a  second  translation  made  into  Jap- 
anese about  the  year  1885,  by  Rev.  Ambrose  Gring,  a 
missionary  of  the  German  Reformed  Church  of  America.f 
The  catechism  was  also  translated  by  one  of  the  foreign 
mission  societies  of  Holland  into  the  language  of  the 
Sangiri  Islands,t  which  are  located  near  the  Islands  of 
Celebes  and  the  Philippines,  in  the  southern  Pacific. 

A  translation  was  also  made  into  the  Amharic  lan- 
guage, the  language  of  Abyssinia  in  northeastern  Africa, 
by  a  missionary  named  Isenberg,  of  whom  we  will  speak 

*  See  its  title-page,  opposite  page  90. 
t  See  its  title  page,  opposite  page  96. 
t  See  its  title-page,  opposite  page  110. 


THE  TRANSLATIONS  15 

later.  It  was  published  in  1842.  It  is  perhaps  the 
quaintest  of  all  the  translations  in  its  appearance.* 

The  most  recent  translation  is  that  into  the  Arabic 
languagef  by  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church  of  America. 
Around  the  Arabic  version  of  our  catechism  there  has 
long  hung  somewhat  of  a  mystery.  Van  Alpen  speaks 
of  such  a  translation,  but  we  have  not  been  able  to 
find  a  copy.  Professor  Hottinger  in  the  seventeenth 
century  said  that  a  translation  had  been  made  by  Golius, 
the  great  Orientalist  of  that  day.  Whether  it  was  ever 
published  or  not  we  know  not.  No  copy  has  been  found. 
It  is  possible  that  Kocher  in  mentioning  this,  may  have 
confused  the  Malay  translation,  in  Arabic  characters,  for 
an  Arabic  translation.  But  whatever  uncertainty  there 
may  have  been  in  the  past,  has  all  been  dispelled  by 
this  new  translation  by  the  Dutch  Reformed  Board  in 
1913.  This  Arabic  translation  is  probably  the  most 
beautiful  and  artistic  of  them  all,  because  Arabic  is  the 
most  beautiful  of  languages,  although  the  Javanese  and 
Tamil  versions  are  quite  beautiful. 

We  have  so  far  mentioned  the  Heidelberg  catechism 
in  twenty-seven  languages  and  dialects. J  And  there  are 
some  others  that  probably  exist.  Thus  Van  Alpen  men- 
tions a  Scotch  version.  He  probably  means  a  translation 
into  English,  but  published  in  Scotland,  as  it  is  hardly 
possible  that  there  was  a  translation  into  the  old  Scotch 
language,  known  as  the  Gaelic.  Indeed,  several  editions 
of  the  Heidelberg  were  early  published  in  Scotland,  even 
in  the  sixteenth  and  the  early  part  of  the  seventeenth 
centuries. 

*  See  its  title-page,  opposite  page  116. 

t  See  its  title-page,  opposite  page  120. 

t  The  author  has  in  his  library  the  Heidelberg  catechism  in 
twenty-two  languages  and  dialects,  among  them  a  second  edition 
of  the  German,  published  in  1563. 


i6  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

Professor  Doudes  also  mentions  a  version  of  the 
Heidelberg  in  the  Persian  language.  We  have  tried  to 
find  it,  but  it  is  not  known  by  modern  Persian  scholars. 
It  must  have  been  ini  old  Persian,  and  perhaps  made  by 
the  Dutch  government  for  the  Eastern  peoples,  as  it 
made  the  Greek  version  for  them.  It  yet  remains  to 
be  solved  whether  there  was  a  version  made  into  the 
language  of  the  Island  of  Formosa,  where  the  Dutch 
missionaries  labored  in  the  seventeenth  century,  and  also 
whether  a  translation  was  made  into  the  Tapuyan  lan- 
guage, of  Brazil,  in  that  century,  where  the  Dutch  had 
a  colony.  There  is  also  a  possibility  of  a  version  of  an 
abbreviation  of  it  in  one  of  the  languages  of  the  foreign 
mission  of  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church  of  South  Africa. 
Nor  does  this  seem  to  be  an  end  to  the  translations  of 
the  Heidelberg,  for  within  a  year  we  have  heard  of  the 
possibility  of  one  or  two  more  translations  being  made 
for  heathen  nations. 

We  have  not  in  this  hurried  survey  paused  to  speak 
of  the  peculiarities  of  some  of  these  translations.  A 
passing  reference  might  be  made  to  the  peculiarities 
of  the  original  German  edition,  although  these  are  so 
well  known.  The  first  edition  of  1563  did  not  have  the 
eightieth  answer,  the  second  had  about  five-sixths  of 
it,  and  the  third  edition  of  that  year  added  the  last 
sentence  that  the  mass  was  an  "accursed  idolatry." 

Some  of  the  translations  reveal  like  peculiarities. 
Thus  one  enlarged  the  catechism,  the  other  shortened  it. 
The  first  was  the  German  edition  of  the  catechism  as 
used  by  the  Canton  of  Bern  in  Switzerland.  It  made  a 
strange  addition  to  the  twenty-seventh  answer,  that 
beautiful  answer  about  God's  providence.  The  addition 
reads : 

"And  although  sin  through  God's  providence  was  con- 


C  (deHjtk  ate 

Wic€tc  /^tpUt^  f^acramcit 

ten  /  cntic  €crfmom'f  It  /  in  tico  59oo?^ 

lutljtitif^cn  /  l?ooc^(jljcboo2cn  l3o?|! 

cnbe  l^<f  ecc/l^«if  <f  U  |rcct)CTif  fi  ;^alt5# 

gtauc  lip  ticn  ^iju/tica  l^cplijjrn  (iloom 

fcl;m  (i^chs  /  •<fcrt5t)?o(i  cntlc 

<ruccDo?(T/%irtocI;  in  ^c^c 

rrii'  (ic.  «Cl)ucrDo?|?cns 

KlOJt. 


nicttJ0  ttt  r^ctjfttiuptfcl;  ncctffc 
licH'<^ucr0ljcfct)t, 


The    title-page    of    the    Heidelberg    catechism    in    the    Dutch 
language.     See  pages  4-5. 


THE  TRANSLATIONS 


17 


trolled,  yet  God  is  not  the  author  of  sin,  for  the  aim 
distinguishes  the  work.  See  examples  of  Joseph  and 
his  brethren,  David  and  Shimei,  Christ  and  the  Jews." 

A  very  interesting  question  comes  up  as  to  the  reason 
why  this  addition  was  made.  It  appears  to  be  a  relic 
of  the  days  when  Bern  was  very  highly  Calvinistic,  even 
supralapsarian,  as  in  the  early  seventeenth  century.* 
And  this  seems  to  have  been  added  to  the  catechism 
so  as  to  explain  an  objection  to  their  supralapsarian  view, 
that  it  made  God  the  author  of  sin.  Over  against  this 
the  answer  says,  "that  God  is  not  the  author  of  sin." 
It  is  strange,  however,  that  this  addition  continued  in 
the  catechism,  for  by  the  seventeenth  century,  lower 
views  of  Calvinism  were  common  in  Bern  and  in  the 
nineteenth  century  the  canton  fell  away  from  Calvinism, 
as  it  gave  up  the  Second  Helvetic  Confession.  But  this 
addition  has  never  been  revised  out  of  the  catechism. 

The  other  amended  version  instead  of  lengthening 
the  catechism,  shortened  it.  It  was  the  Hungarian. f 
This  catechism  was  shortened  by  leaving  out  the  parts 
offensive  to  the  Catholics.  The  catechism  was  used 
entire  in  Hungary  up  to  the  reign  of  the  Empress  Maria 
Theresa.  She,  however,  according  to  privat-docent  Er- 
dos,  of  Debreczin,  forbade  the  use  of  the  catechism 
three  times:  in  September  23,  1748;  January  10,  1749, 
and  March  11,  1757,  and  this  decree  was  in  force  during 
her  life.  Her  son,  the  more  liberal  Emperor  Joseph  II, 
permitted  it  to  be  printed  and  used,  but  it  was  an  ex- 
purgated edition,  the  clauses  against  the  Romanists  being 
omitted.  Thus,  answer  thirty  is  largely  omitted,  the 
part  where  it  says,  "they  boast  of  Him  in  words,  but 

*  See  my  "History  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  Switzerland." 
pages  46-55  and  166-167. 

t  See  its  title-page,  opposite  page  126, 

2 


l8  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

deny  him  as  Saviour,  and  that  he  is  a  complete 
Saviour"  being  left  out.  Also  the  end  of  answer  eighty 
is  cut  off,  "so  that  the  mass  is  at  bottom  nothing  else 
than  a  denial  of  the  one  sacrifice  and  sufferings  of  Jesus 
Christ  and  an  accursed  idolatry."  This  expurgated  cate- 
chism appeared  in  1787  and  was  used  by  the  Reformed 
Church  of  Hungary  until  1891,  when  Prof,  Joseph  Erdos, 
of  Debreczin,  published  the  complete  catechism,  and  this 
is  now  used. 

Time  also  fails  to  speak  of  the  abbreviated  editions 
of  the  Heidelberg.  Thus,  in  German,  Count  John  Cas- 
imir,  of  the  Palatinate,  published  one  in  1585.  Another 
was  published  by  Prof.  F,  A.  Krummacher,  and  still 
another  at  Elberfeld  in  1849.  There  were  also  abbrevi- 
ated editions  in  the  Dutch,  as  the  one  made  by  the  Sy- 
nod of  Dort  and  in  use  in  this  country  by  the  Dutch 
Reform'ed,  and  entitled  "A  Compendium  of  Christian 
Religion."  There  was  also  a  Dutch  Shorter  Heidelberg 
by  Bekker,  1668.  Maresius  published  one  in  French, 
Martinius  in  Latin.  Recently  Rev.  Prof.  D.  Van  Home, 
of  the  Central  Theological  Seminary,  Dayton,  Ohio,  has 
published  a  fine  edition  with  the  answers  abbreviated. 
The  Heidelberg  also  served  as  the  basis  of  various  cate- 
chetical works,  as  of  "The  Milk  of  Truth,"  by  Rev. 
Prof.  F.  A.  Lampe  (1718)  and  in  our  own  Church  in 
the  catechisms  of  Helffenstein,  Rahauser  and  others. 

Time  also  fails  to  speak  of  the  poetical  editions  of 
the  catechisms.  Its  prose  was  repeatedly  turned  into 
poetry.  Peucer  published  a  German  version  (1597) 
and  another  was  published  at  Wesel,  1742.  Thus,  Francis 
Plante,  the  court  preacher  of  Count  John  Maurice,  of 
Brazil,  wrote  epigrams  in  Latin  on  it,  Leyden,  1679. 
Klaarbout  published  its  questions  and  answers  in  rhyme 
in   Amsterdam,    1725,   and    Bekker   also    in    1661.     We 


THE  TRANSLATIONS 


19 


found  an  interesting  poetical  version  in  German  at  Heid- 
elberg, done  into  quite  good  German  poetry  and  set  to 
different  tunes,  so  that  it  could  be  sung.  Its  preface 
says  it  was  made  in  order  that  illiterate  people  might  be 
better  able  to  learn  its  truth.  We  also  found  in  Switzer- 
land, especially  in  the  cantons  of  Schaffhausen  and  Bern, 
hymnbooks  with  catechetical  hymns  for  its  use.  Thus 
John  Rudolph  Keller,  of  Bern,  in  1723,  published  "Hymns 
on  the  Catechism."  The  Schaffhausen  catechisms  of 
1718  and  1763  had  catechetical  hymns  at  the  end. 

But  these  translations  of  the  Heidelberg  are  inter- 
esting, not  only  on  account  of  their  authors,  but  also 
on  account  of  the  history  that  is  connected  with  them. 
There  is  not  one  of  them  that  has  not  had  an  impressive 
history.  Quite  a  number  of  them  have  earned  the  right 
to  be  called  "Martyrs'  catechisms,"  because  the  blood  of 
martyrs  has  been  shed  for  them.  Of  these  are  the 
German,  Dutch,  French,  Romansch,  Bohemian,  Hun- 
garian, Polish,  Italian  and  Spanish.  We  have  space  here 
to  refer  only  to  a  few  of  them. 

Thus  our  German  version  has  had  its  martyrs  brave 
and  true  in  the  Palatinate,  in  Nassau  and  the  Northern 
Rhine.* 

The  Dutch  version  has  had  many  martyrs.  One 
hundred  thousand  laid  down  their  lives  for  their  Re- 
formed faith,  whose  symbol  was  our  catechism,  as  they 
fought  and  died  to  free  their  land  from  Spain.  The 
awful  sieges  of  Haarlem  and  Leyden  are  examples. f 

The  Romansch  translation  saw  many  martyrs  to  it 
in  the  Engadine  region   of   Switzerland,   in   the  Thirty 

*  See  my  "History  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  Germany," 
pages  16-93.  225-307,  and  •'Famous  Women  of  the  Reformed 
Church,"  pages  177-20.5. 

t  See  Motley's  Histories  and  Griffi's  "Brave  Little  Holland." 


20  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

Years'  War.* 

The  Italian  version  also  had  its  martyrs  at  the  be- 
ginning of  that  Thirty  Years'  War,  in  the  terrible  mas- 
sacre of  the  Valtellina,  where  400  were  killed,  as  at  Teglio 
a  whole  congregation  was  killed  or  burned  to  death  in 
an  awful  holocaust. t 

The  Hungarian  versioni  has  had  its  many  martyrs,  as 
in  the  forty  Refonned  ministers,  who  were  dragged  in 
chains  all  the  way  from  the  Danube  to  Naples,  and  there 
sold  as  galley-slaves. $ 

The  Bohemian  Heidelberg  catechism  is  also  a  "Mar- 
tyrs' catechism,"  whose  adherents  were  not  allowed  to 
worship  for  more  than  150  years.  Without  pastors, 
churches  or  sacraments,  they  kept  the  faith  secretly, 
and  when  toleration  came  they  declared  themselves  Pro- 
testants by  thousands  and  most  of  them  as  Reformed. 

The  Heidelberg  catechism  has  thus  in  its  various 
translations  had  a  wonderful  history, — a  history  often 
written  in  blood.  Its  centre  the  blood  of  Christ,  it  has 
itself  been  bought  with  blood,  the  blood  of  the  martyrs. 
Our  Church,  if  it  manufactures  another  catechism,  will 
never  have  such  a  catechism  so  full  of  history  to  send  a 
thrill  and  inspiration  like  the  Heidelberg. 

"They  climbed  the  steep  ascent  of  heaven. 
Through  peril,  toil  and  pain. 
O  God,  to  us  may  grace  be  given 
To  follow  in  their  train." 

*  See  my  "History  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  Switzerland," 
pages  90-98. 

t  See  my  "History  of  the  Swiss  Reformed  Church,"  pages 
84-90. 

t  See  my  "History  of  the  Swiss  Reformed  Church,"  pages 
127-133. 


Catechifmc, 

DES     POINTS     PRIN- 

CIPAVX      DE      LA       RELI- 

gion  Chreftiennc :  en  forme  dc 

Demandc,t3nt  en  Francois 

qu'en  Allemand. 

Iti  du  Conte  P((UtHf,Prfnct  ElecJeUf 
du  S.  Empre. 

Auec  pluficurs  Prieres. 

3«ft<((.    3n  Sranfjofijctcr  vnxA 
frrUgt/ 


Imprimc  par  lacob  Stoer, 

M.     DC  V  II. 

The   title-page   of  the   Heidelberg  catechism   in   the   French 
language.     See  page  7. 


THE  TRANSLATIONS  21 

Modern  catechisms  are  singularly  uninspirational  and 
flat  as  compared  with  the  Heidelberg.  Modern  cate- 
chisms don't  make  martyrs.  If  our  Church  would  make 
a  great  future,  as  she  has  a  great  past,  she  will  cling  to 
the  Heidelberg. 


k 


CHAPTER  II 

inte;re;sting  facts  connected  with  the  translations 

There  is  an  interesting  story  connected  with  some  of 
these  translations.  Some  of  them  have  a  romance  con- 
nected with  them.  Others  have  sad  and  awful  tragedies, 
as  we  have  seen.  Perhaps  we  may  take  time  to  pause 
on  three  which  are  especially  interesting  in  regard  to 
their  translations. 

The  first  is  the  English  version,  which,  of  course, 
is  especially  interesting  to  us  who  use  that  language.  It 
was  made,  as  we  have  seen,  by  William  Turner,  doctor 
of  physic.  Now  this  translator  is  quite  an  interesting 
character,  and  his  publication  of  the  translation  of  the 
Heidelberg  is  quite  significant.  He  was  born  at  Mor- 
peth about  1 510,  and  studied  at  the  university  of  Cam- 
bridge. There  he  became  intimate  with  the  British  re- 
formers, as  Ridley  (who  taught  him  Greek),  and  Lat- 
imer, whom  he  often  heard  preach  and  whose  Protestant 
teachings  he  accepted.  On  account  of  his  ability  he 
was  made  professor  there,  though  young.  But  in  1540 
he  seems  to  have  left  Cambridge  and  traveled  about, 
preaching  in  various  places.  The  truth  was  he  was  one 
of  the  most  ardent  of  the  British  reformers.  He  was 
hounded  by  the  Romanizers  and  finally  imprisoned  for 
preaching  without  a  license,  for  he  was  as  yet  a  layman. 

When  he  was  released,  he  left  England  and  traveled 
on  the  continent  of  Europe,  through  Holland,  Germany 
and  Italy.  At  Bologna  he  studied  botany  and  received 
the  degree  of  doctor  of  medicine.     From  that  time  he 

22 


THE  TRANSLATIONS 


23 


became  prominent  as  a  scientist,  so  that  he  has  been  called 
"The  Father  of  English  Botany."  From  Bologna  he 
went  to  Zurich,  where  Gessner,  the  great  naturalist  says : 
"About  fifteen  years  ago,  Turner,  an  Englishman,  re- 
turning from  Italy,  paid  me  a  visit.  I  found  him  a 
man  of  such  excellent  learning,  both  in  medicine  and 
most  other  sciences,  so  that  I  can  scarcely  mention  an- 
other such  person."  From  Zurich  he  went  to  Basle, 
where  he  published  "The  Hunting  and  Finding  of  the 
Romish  Fox  Among  the  Bishops  of  England."  It  was 
dedicated  to  King  Henry  VIII  of  England,  and  was  a 
bitter  exposure  of  the  Catholics  in  Britain.  He  then 
became  private  physician  of  the  Duke  of  Emden,  in 
Germany.  During  this  time  he  published  a  number  of 
Protestant  books,  which  became  so  popular  in  England 
that  the  British  government,  which  was  not  as  yet  Prot- 
estant, forbade  them  in  1546. 

When  England  became  Protestant  under  King  Ed- 
ward VI,  he  returned  to  England  and  became  private 
chaplain  and  physician  to  the  Duke  of  Somerset.  There 
he  had  a  private  botanical  garden  for  his  use  as  a  scientist 
at  Kew,  in  London.  Yet  he  was  not  satisfied,  for  he 
wanted  an  appointment  in  the  Church.  On  February  12, 
1550,  he  was  made  prebend  of  a  Church  in  York.  But  he 
was  disappointed,  for  he  sought  a  yet  higher  position, — 
namely,  the  presidency  of  Magdelen  College,  at  Oxford, 
for  which  his  ability  and  fame  as  a  scientist  would  have 
fitted  him.  Dissatisfied,  he  was  thinking  about  going  to 
the  continent  again,  when  he  was  appointed  dean  at  Wells. 
But  even  there  he  was  uncomfortable,  for  he  could  not 
live  in  the  house  which  belonged  to  the  canonry,  as  the 
bishop  refused  to  vacate  and  he  complained  of  his  un- 
comfortable quarters.  On  December  21,  1552,  he  was  or- 
dained as  a  priest  of  the  Anglican  Church,  by  Ridley.    In 


24  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

1553  he  was  deprived  of  his  deanery  and  his  predecessor 
reinstated.  So  he  left  England  and  went  to  the  continent 
during  the  reign  of  bloody  Queen  Mary.  He  stayed  at 
Bonn,  Strasburg,  Spires,  Worms,  Frankford,  Mayence, 
Cologne,  Weissenberg,  Chur  and  Basle.  His  books  were 
prohibited  by  Queen  Mary. 

When  Queen  Elizabeth  ascended  the  throne,  he  re- 
turned to  England,  and  on  September  10,  1559,  he 
preached  at  St.  Paul's  Cross,  in  London,  before  the  Lord 
Mayor  and  a  great  audience.  He  then  brought  suit 
against  the  Catholic  who  had  taken  possession  of  his 
deanery  and  house  at  Wells.  And  he  was  restored  to 
his  deanery  by  royal  order  June  18,  1560.  But  mean- 
while, through  his  association  with  the  reformers  on  the 
continent,  he  had  become  very  low-Church  in  his  views. 
He  opposed  the  ceremonies  of  high-churchism  in  the 
Anglican  Church  and  paid  little  attention  to  the  authority 
of  bishops.  He  wanted,  if  possible,  to  make  the  Anglican 
Church  conform  as  much  as  possible  to  the  Reformed 
Churches  on  the  continent.  One  of  his  books  was  influ- 
ential in  bringing  about  the  strife  between  the  high-  and 
low-Church.  He  became  very  severe  against  bishops, 
calling  them  "white  coats"  and  "tippet  gentlemen,"  thus 
ridiculing  their  robes.  Their  use  of  the  square  cap  was 
especially  obnoxious  to  him,  and  once  he  is  said  to  have 
ordered  an  adulterer  to  wear  one  while  doing  penance, 
so  as  to  scandalize  it.  Once,  when  a  bishop  was  dining 
with  him,  his  trained  dog,  boldly  and  neatly  plucked  off 
the  bishop's  square  hat.  His  bishop  became  scandalized 
and  made  complaints  against  his  obnoxious  acts  and  in- 
dircreet  language  in  the  pulpit  in  1564.  So  Turner  was 
suspended  from  the  ministry  for  non-conformity,  es- 
pecially for  refusing  to  wear  the  white  gown  when 
officiating.     He  then  seems  to  have  gone  abroad,  for  in 


THN     EKKAHSIflN 

T  H    2 

B  E  A  r  I  K  H  S 

Hyuv, 

EHOMOAOrHZIS, 

KATHXHSI2, 

AEITOTPriA, 

K  A  N  O  N  E  2     ExxA«oja?;x(5i. 


The    title-page    of   the    Heidelberg   catechism    in    the    Greek 
language.     See  pages  7-8. 


THE  TRANSLATIONS  25 

November,  1567,  he  was  at  Weissenberg,  Germany.  He 
died  in  London,  July  7,  1568,  and  was  buried  at  St. 
Olave's  Church  on  Hart  street. 

He  was  the  first  Englishman  who  studied  plants  scien- 
tifically, and  was  therefore  called  "The  Father  of  English 
Botany."  His  translation  of  our  catechism  was  no 
doubt  due  to  his  travels  on  the  continent.  It  is  alto- 
gether possible  that  when  he  was  at  Weissenberg,  Ger- 
many, in  1567,  he  translated  it  into  English.  But  its 
appearance  occurred  during  that  period  of  his  life  when 
he  was  suspended  from  the  Church  for  being  such  a 
pronounced  low-Churchman.  And  it  is  altogether  pos- 
sible that  it  was  for  that  reason  he  translated  it,  for  he 
may  have  wanted  to  show  by  it  what  the  continental  re- 
formers believed,  and  he  thus  made  it  a  defense  of  his 
low-Church  principles. 

Though  he  died  soon  after  his  translation  of  it,  yet 
the  catechism  continued  to  win  favor  and  was  one  of  the 
first  catechisms  of  the  Anglican  Church.  For,  in  1579, 
the  university  of  Oxford  ordered  that  it,  together  with 
several  other  catechisms,  as  Nowell's  and  Calvin's, 
"should  be  used  for  the  extirpation  of  every  heresy  and 
the  preparation  of  the  youth  in  true  piety."  The  cate- 
chism was  printed,  1591,  in  Scotland,  and  was  also  one 
of  the  first  catechisms  of  the  Scotch  Church,  for  it  was 
authorized  by  the  King's  Majesty  for  the  use  of  the 
Scotch  Church.  Rev.  Dr.  Bonar  reprints  in  his  "Cate- 
chisms of  the  Scottish  Reformation,"  an  edition  of  1615, 
"printed  for  the  use  of  the  Kirk  of  Edinburgh."  The 
Heidelberg  was  used  after  Calvin's  catechism,  and  before 
Craig's,  which  was  supplanted  by  the  Westminster  cate- 
chisms. Rev.  James  Gardiner  in  "The  Faiths  of  the 
World,"  says :  "This  excellent  catechism  was  the  model 
on  which  the  Westminster  divines  formed  the  Shorter 


26  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

catechism  of  the  Presbyterian  Church."  The  catechism 
and  Ursinus'  Commentary  on  it  soon  found  wide  circu- 
lation in  England  and  Scotland.  The  latter  work  was 
published  at  Oxford  in  1587,  under  the  title,  "The 
Summe  of  the  Christian  Religion."  It  was  translated 
by  Henry  Parrie,  one  of  Queen  Elizabeth's  chaplains, 
and  bishop  successively  of  three  sees,  Rochester,  Glouces- 
ter and  Worcester. 

When  the  Synod  of  Dort  was  held  (1618-19),  the 
British  delegates,  though  disagreeing  with  its  exposition 
of  the  clause  of  the  creed  "He  descended  into  hell,"  yet 
agreed  that  neither  in  their  own  nor  in  the  French  Church 
was  there  a  catechism  so  suitable  and  excellent,  and  that 
those  who  had  composed  it  were  remarkably  endowed 
and  assisted  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  that  in  several  of  their 
works  they  had  excelled  other  theologians,  but  that  in 
the  composition  of  this  catechism  they  had  outdone 
themselves.  Bishop  Hall,  one  of  the  British  delegates 
at  Dort,  said,  after  his  return  to  England:  "Our  Re- 
formed brethren  on  the  continent  have  a  little  book 
whose  single  leaves  are  not  to  be  bought  with  tons  of 
gold."  When  the  Palatinate  was  so  terribly  oppressed 
by  war,  the  British  published  an  edition  of  the  catechism 
so  as  to  show  their  sympathy.  It  was  dedicated  to  King 
George  I.  In  1850,  an  edition  was  published  by  Thel- 
wall  against  the  rising  tide  of  tractarianism,  in  which  he 
says  he  never  saw  a  book  in  which  the  doctrine  of  justi- 
fication by  faith  was  so  fully  and  evangelically  stated  as 
in  answer  60.  The  catechism  was  also  published  in 
English,  in  Holland,  for  the  English  Churches  there. 
And  later  it  was  translated  in  America,  into  English,  by 
Dr.  Laidlie,  of  the  Dutch  Church,  which  edition  is  gen- 
erally in  use  by  us.  But  would  it  not  be  well  for  the 
Dutch  and  German  Church  to  unite  in  making  an  official 


THE  TRANSLATIONS  27 

translation,  as  there  are  errors  in  the  Laidlie  version  of 
the  Dutch  Church,  and  also  in  the  tercentenary  version 
of  the  German. 

Another  exceedingly  interesting  translation  is  the 
Spanish  ;*  indeed,  it  is  tragically  interesting,  for  its  trans- 
lator was  burned  at  the  stake  for  it.f 

We  have  recently  been  able,  after  considerable  search, 
to  unearth  the  life  of  this  strange  but  interesting  man, 
whose  name  was  John  Aventrot  (in  German,  Abendroth, 
meaning  Evening-red).  He  was  born  about  the  time  of 
the  publication  of  our  catechism  at  Halteren,  in  Flanders, 
and  went  to  Spain  in  the  eighties  of  that  century.  He 
was  in  his  early  life  (about  1590),  a  resident  for  five 
years  of  the  Canary  Islands.  There  he  says  not  a 
Bible  was  allowed  him,  so  that  when  he  left  and  came 
to  a  land  of  greater  freedom  he  became  a  Protestant. 
He  became  a  merchant  and  seems  to  have  gone  back  to 
the  Canary  Islands,  for  in  his  trial  it  speaks  of  his  having 
been  arrested  there  by  the  Inquisition  for  heresy.  He 
was  charged  with  printing  and  scattering  books,  and  for 
this  was  driven  out.  His  possessions  in  Spain  were 
also  confiscated.  Then  it  seems  he  lived  in  Peru, 
being  interested  in  the  silver  mines,  for  he  left  there 
about  1601.  It  seems  that  there  were  some  Protestants 
in  South  America  even  in  those  early  days,  though  Ro- 
manism kept  the  door  to  South  America  tightly  shut. 

In  1610  he  wrote  two  letters  to  King  Philip  III  of 
Spain  (also,  in  1612,  another  letter),  in  which  he  en- 
deavored to  show  him  that  the  Pope  was  the  cause  of 
the  loss  to  him  of  the  seventeen  provinces  of  the  Nether- 
lands, and  also  of  the  suffering  of  the  Spanish  Colonies, 
under   their   enormous   taxes.     He   therefore   asked   the 

*  For  its  title-page,  see  opposite  page  130. 
t  See  frontispiece. 


28  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

king  to  deliver  his  lands  from  the  papacy.  His  first 
letter,  written  from  England,  was  given  to  the  King 
six  months  after  it  was  written  and  the  second,  a  year 
later.  He  published  these  letters  in  a  tract  in  Dutch 
(1613),  and  in  Spanish  (1641).  He  added  an  exhorta- 
tion to  the  grandees  or  nobles  of  Spain  in  the  hope  that 
the  King  would  grant  them  the  privilege  of  examining 
the  matter  for  themselves.  Of  this  publication  he  sent 
seven  thousand  in  a  ship  to  Lisbon  for  distribution  in 
Spain.  He  also  sent,  by  land,  one  of  his  servants,  a 
relative,  John  Crote.  But  the  Inquisition  ordered  these 
copies  to  be  burned.  And  his  messenger  was  condemned 
to  a  punishment  of  six  years  in  the  galleys.  When  the 
sentence  was  published,  the  King  himself  went  to  Toledo, 
May,  161 5,  so  that  by  his  presence  he  might  show  his 
approval  of  the  sentence.  Aventrot,  on  hearing  what 
they  had  done  with  his  pamphlet  and  his  messenger, 
laconically  remarked :  "That  the  Inquisition  has  sent  my 
innocent  servant  to  the  galleys,  that  I  commend  to  God; 
but  that  they  have  destroyed  my  seven  thousand  pam- 
phlets, that  concerns  myself,  and  I  feel  obliged  again  to 
send  the  tract ;  so  that  the  glory  of  God  may  not  be  dark- 
ened by  that  crime.  By  this  I  have  made  more  manifest 
than  ever  the  shame  of  the  Pope."  So  he  published  the 
pamphlet  a  second  time,  in  1615;  in  fact  it  was  published 
in  four  other  languages  in  that  year — the  Dutch,  German, 
Latin  and  Italian,  and  in  the  next  year  in  French.  In 
1620,  after  the  death  of  his  wife,  he  betook  himself  to 
the  Netherlands  and  lived  in  Amsterdam,  Hague  and 
Utrecht. 

Tn  1627  he  published  his  "Letter  to  the  Peruvians." 
In  it  was  first  published  his  Spanish  translation  of  the 
Heidelberg  catechism.  In  1628,  this  Spanish  Heidelberg 
catechism  was  published  separately  at  Amsterdam.     In 


THE  TRANSLATIONS  •  29 

this  edition  there  were  added  the  Dutch  Reformed  lit- 
urgy, together  with  the  Nicene  and  Athanasian  Creeds. 
This  "Epistle  to  the  Peruvians"  we  have  had  copied,  as 
it  is  connected  with  our  new  world  of  America,  and 
shows  Aventrot's  early  relations  with,  and  interest  in, 
our  new  world.  It  opens  with  a  preface  to  the  States- 
General  of  Holland.  In  it  he  says  he  had  so  advocated 
the  affairs  of  Peru,  that,  in  1622,  the  States-General 
of  Holland  began  to  equip  an  armada  against  Peru,  in 
order  to  take  it  from  Spain.  This  expedition  was  sent  in 
1623,  under  General  Jaques  Lermyte ;  but  it  was  not 
successful.  Aventrot  laid  the  blame  of  its  failure,  among 
other  things,  on  the  fact  that  the  catechism  was  not  sent 
with  it,  and  so  he  translated  it  in  1627.  Aventrot  is 
mystical  in  his  writings  and  in  this  letter  approves  of 
the  use  of  the  lot.  But  in  it  all  he  was  a  statesman; 
for  his  aim  was  to  deprive  the  King  of  Spain  of  Peru, 
on  whose  wealth  Rome  relied  to  carry  out  her  plans  to 
persecute  the  Protestants.  He  had  this  letter  printed 
and  had  eight  thousand  copies  sent  to  Peru.  It  became 
a  somewhat  dangerous  political  document,  for  in  it  he 
appealed  to  the  Peruvians  to  repudiate  the  King  of 
Spain,  because  of  his  oppressions,  and  also  to  repudiate 
the  Pope.  And  he  makes  a  point  dangerous  to  Spain 
when  he  reminds  the  Peruvians,  who  were  greatly  op- 
pressed by  the  Spaniards,  that  when  Charles,  the  previ- 
ous King  of  Spain,  had  conquered  Peru,  he  had  given 
a  decree  that  the  Indians  who  had  aided  him  in  the 
conquest  should  be  freed  in  the  fourth  generation.  And 
he  reminded  them  that  this  came  due  in  1628,  and  he 
therefore  calls  them  to  rise  to  their  rights  and  reject 
the  King  of  Spain.  The  Holland  States-General  sent 
three  thousand  copies  of  his  letter  to  the  Peruvians, 
which  was  signed  by  them,  to  Buenos  Ayres,  in  1628,  to 


30  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

promote  their  uprising  by  offering  to  help  them  to  gain 
their  hberty.  It  proposed  an  alliance  of  Holland 
and  Peru.  Thus  you  see  how  far-reaching  was  his 
appeal.  For  he  felt  that  the  wealth  of  the  silver  mines 
of  Peru  was  used  by  the  Catholics  against  the  Protestants, 
and  he  wanted  Holland  to  wrest  from  them  this  source 
of  their  power. 

In  163 1,  when  many  of  the  leading  men  of  Peru 
went  to  Madrid  to  seek  some  remedy  for  the  low  con- 
dition of  their  commerce,  Aventrot  himself  went  to  Mad- 
rid; for  on  account  of  his  prominence  he  had  often  been 
previously  consulted  by  Spanish  authorities  on  commer- 
cial and  financial  questions.  At  an  audience  with  King 
Philip  IV,  he  dared  to  plead  for  religious  liberty,  a  thing 
Spain  does  not  as  yet  have.  He  handed  to  the  king  two 
memorials.  The  answer  of  the  King  was  to  deliver  him 
to  the  Inquisition,  at  Toledo.  It  happened  that  after 
Aventrot's  death,  an  account  of  his  trial  and  death  was 
published  at  Amsterdam.  From  it  we  glean  the  follow- 
ing: "Charged  with  heresy  in  his  publications,  he  wrote 
a  Protestant  confession  of  his  faith.  The  Inquisition 
offered  him  that  if  he  would  return  to  Romanism,  he 
would  be  reinstated  in  his  properties  which  had  been  con- 
fiscated in  Spain,  and  would  be  elevated  to  a  higher  rank 
than  he  had  ever  had  before.  But  such  bribes  only 
found  him  immovable  and  steadfast  in  the  faith.  He 
was,  therefore,  delivered  to  the  police-justice  for  punish- 
ment. And  not  only  was  he  punished,  but  also  his  sons- 
in-law  and  daughters-in-law,  for  all  their  dignities  and 
offices  were  taken  away  from  them."  The  decree  in 
regard  to  them  reads  thus :  "We  forbid  them  to  wear 
gold,  silver,  pearl,  precious  stones,  silk,  beads,  fine  broad- 
cloth, riding  horseback,  bearing  arms,  taking  part  in 
military   drill,   etc."     The   sentence   ordered   him   to   be 


Ill 
HEIDELBERSKI 

tLOZONY  PRZEZ  TE0L0G6W 

Zacharyjasza  Ursyna  i  Kacpra  Olewiana 

i  pierwotuie  wydany  w  Heidelbergn  1563  r. 

z  poleceniB 
Elektora   Palatynatu   Fryderyka   III, 

cJtq9    so>    poiv»»«cfnii«    lisviant^    i    uitjvianx^   to    Xoicitd 
Stvanait^icAo-oRjfoimoioani^vtv. 


Wydmie  drngiepoprawione,  poptrte  dowodami  z  Pisma  Swietego, 
t  poprzeizone  hiBtorfczojni  wstijpfm. 


o«,;i^45^§fa».o 


WARSZAWA. 

W    DRUKARNI    ALEXANDRA    GIXSA. 
Nowozietna  Ai  47. 

1900. 


The    title-page    of    the    Heidelberg   catechism    in    the    Poli.sh 
language.     See  page  8. 


THE  TRANSLATIONS  31 

burned,  May  22,  1632.  This  took  place  at  that  date, 
after  he  had  been  seven  months  in  prison.  There,  in  the 
open  square  of  the  Zocodover,  at  Toledo,*  he,  like 
Elijah  the  Prophet,  went  to  heaven  in  a  fiery  chariot. 
And  as  his  name  Aventrot  means  "Evening  red,"  it  was 
then  evening  red  as  he  passed  over  into  heaven.  Noth- 
ing is  more  beautiful  in  Switzerland  than  the  Alpine- 
glow,  which  takes  place  as  the  sun  sets,  when  the  white 
Alps  catch  the  hues  of  the  western  sky  and  reflect  them, 
turning  from  white  to  pink  and  then  to  red,  and  then 
back  to  white  again.  Such  an  Alpine-glow  surrounded 
the  death  of  Aventrot  as  he  went  to  glory  in  the  fires 
of  the  Inquisition.  His  catechism  was  bought  with  his 
own  blood  as  he  had  been  bought  with  the  blood  of 
his  Redeemer.  It  is  interesting  to  know  that  this  Spanish 
translation  of  the  Heidelberg  catechism  is  now  used  in 
the  German  Protestant  missions  in  Spain,  founded  by 
Fliedner,  and  in  the  very  house  where  King  Philip  II  of 
Spain,  their  great  persecutor,  lived,  when  he  built  his 
great  palace  near  Madrid,  called  the  Escorial.  This  house 
is  now  used  as  a  Protestant  orphanage. 

Still  another  catechism  of  unique  interest  is  the  Am- 
haric  version.  This  is  such  an  unknown  language  that 
when  we  first  found  this  translation  we  had  to  go  to  the 
Gazetteer  to  find  out  where  it  was  spoken.  It  is  modern 
Abyssinian.     The  translation  has  a  strange  history. 

It  was  made  by  a  missionary.  Rev.  Charles  Isenberg. 
He  was  born  September  5,  1806,  at  Barmen,  in  the  Wup- 
perthal,  that  great  Reformed  valley  of  Germany.  His 
family  later  moved  to  Wesel,  in  northwestern  Germany, 
where  he  was  apprenticed  at  the  age  of  fourteen  to  a 
Catholic  tinner,  under  whom  he  worked  for  three  years. 
His   master   was   severe   and   ill-treated   him,   especially 

*  See  frontispiece. 


32  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

when  he  found  he  was  inclined  to  be  religious.  And  yet 
all  the  while,  from  his  earliest  boyhood,  the  missionary 
call  was  coming  to  him.  Finally,  at  the  close  of  his 
apprenticeship,  in  1823,  he  presented  himself  to  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Kloenne,  one  of  the  pastors  at  Wesel,  asking  to  be 
sent  as  a  missionary.  He  and  another  young  missionary 
applicant  were  examined  at  Wesel,  November  10,  1823. 
He  was  approved,  but  it  was  felt,  as  he  was  yet  young, 
that  he  had  better  wait  some  time,  and  meanwhile  he 
spent  the  time  in  study.  He  then  entered  the  Mission- 
house  at  Basle,  December  8,  1824.  After  three  years 
there,  he  went  to  the  Berlin  Mission  Institute,  so  as  to 
prepare  himself  to  become  a  translator  of  the  Bible,  and 
spent  two  years  there. 

In  1830,  the  Church  Missionary  Society  of  England 
(the  society  of  the  low-churchmen  in  the  Anglican 
Church)  wanted  a  translator  for  Malta,  in  the  Mediter- 
ranean, and  he  entered  their  service  as  translator.  He 
then  went  to  London  to  study  Arabic,  Ethiopic  and 
medicine.  But  his  destination  was  changed  by  the  death 
of  one  of  their  missionaries,  and  he  was  sent  out  as  a 
missionary  to  Abyssinia,  in  1832,  to  labor  there  with 
Gobat,  later  bishop  of  Jerusalem.  He,  however  (Janu- 
ary, 1833),  went  first  to  Egypt  to  study  Arabic  and 
Amharic.  He  entered  Abyssinia,  in  1834,  with  Gobat. 
They  went  through  Tigre,  the  northern  province  of 
Abyssinia,  and  settled  in  Adowah.  But  the  Prince,  Ibie, 
was  hostile  and  there  were  intrigues  at  court  against  the 
missionaries.  Gobat  was  soon  compelled  to  leave  on  ac- 
count of  ill-health,  and  Isenberg  was  left  there  without 
any  experience  as  a  missionary  or  the  tact  to  adjust 
himself.  The  priest  of  the  Abyssinian  Church,  which  is  a 
curious  combination  of  Judaism  and  Christianity,  mixed 
with  formalism,  and  lax  morally,  used  all  his  influence 


THE  TRANSLATIONS  33 

at  court  against  Isenberg.  Rumors  were  spread  abroad 
that  not  only  did  these  foreigners  intend  to  introduce  a 
new  Church,  but  that  they  were  secretely  digging  a  sub- 
terranean passage  to  the  Red  Sea,  so  as  to  lead  British 
soldiers  into  the  heart  of  that  land.  When  the  three 
children  of  Isenberg  died,  one  after  the  other,  the  priests 
would  not  allow  them  to  be  buried,  because  they  had 
not  been  baptized  in  the  Abyssinian  Church,  and  he  had 
to  bury  them  in  his  own  garden.  In  1838,  the  priest 
pronounced  a  ban  on  all  who  visited  the  missionaries. 
The  Jesuits  also  intrigued  against  him  at  court,  for 
they  were  then  trying  to  win  the  Abyssinian  Church  to 
Romanism.  On  March  12,  1838,  they  (Blumhardt, 
Krapf  and  Isenberg)  were  compelled  to  leave,  though 
their  departure  was  mourned  by  many  of  the  natives, 
but  their  friends  were  poor  and  without  influence  at  court. 
He  then  went  into  another  part  of  Abyssinia,  to  Shoa, 
where  he  suffered  many  privations,  but  he  was  soon 
recalled  by  the  Church  Missionary  Society  to  Europe, 
so  as  to  publish  his  translations  for  the  mission.  He 
arrived  at  London  in  April,  1840.  It  was  strange  that 
an  Episcopalian  Society  would  publish,  at  London,  his 
translation  of  the  Heidelberg  catechism,  and  at  their  ex- 
pense, especially  as  they  had  a  catechism  of  their  own. 
In  1842  he  went  back  to  East  Africa  to  make  a  third  at- 
tempt to  enter  that  land.  He  found  that  the  missionaries 
were  forbidden  by  the  king  to  enter  Shoa.  Still  the  mis- 
sionaries chose  a  new  field,  hoping  to  enter  by  the  province 
of  Serawah,  in  northern  Abyssinia.  The  missionaries 
finally  got  back  to  Adowah,  May  21,  1843.  As  they 
went,  they  scattered  Amharic  Bibles.  But  when  they  ar- 
rived at  Adowah,  the  Abyssinian  priest  demanded  to 
know  whether  they  had  changed  their  religion  and  con- 
formed to  the  Abyssinian  Church  in  its  belief  in  tran- 


34 


THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 


substantiation  and  the  worship  of  Mary.  Finding  that 
they  had  not,  he  then  excommunicated  them  and  forbade 
them  to  enter  the  town,  though  many  of  the  people  were 
favorable.  He  committed  "the  souls  of  the  missionaries 
to  Satan,  their  bodies  to  hyenas,  their  possessions  to 
thieves.''  Still,  Isenberg  did  not  give  up.  He  loved 
Abyssinia  in  spite  of  the  treatment  he  had  received  there. 
He  was  ready  to  give  his  life  for  them.  And  he  would 
not  leave  it  until  every  stone  was  turned  to  enable  them 
to  stay.  He,  therefore,  appealed  to  the  patriarch  of  the 
Coptic  Church,  who  was  somewhat  favorable  to  Evan- 
gelical religion,  but  in  vain.  Finally,  with  a  broken  heart, 
he  was  compelled  to  leave  Adowah,  June  27,  1843.  He 
had  now  been  a  missionary  for  more  than  ten  years 
and  yet  had  failed  on  all  sides.  He  was  driven  out 
from  that  land,  and  yet  in  all  his  after-life  he  retained 
a  homesickness  for  Abyssinia  and  would  have  gone  back 
to  it  again. 

He  went  back  to  Germany  for  a  time,  but  was  then 
sent  by  the  Church  Missionary  Society  to  Bombay,  in 
India,  where  he  labored  for  many  years.  Yet  even  there 
he  cared  for  his  beloved  Abyssinia.  When,  in  1847,  about 
sixty  boys  and  girls  from  Africa  were  brought  to  Bom- 
bay, he  helped  to  care  for  them  and  rejoiced  in  bringing 
them  to  Christ.  This  he  could  the  more  easily  do  as 
many  of  them  spoke  Amharic.  Again,  in  1849,  he  took 
into  his  house  five  Abyssinians,  who  had  been  brought 
there  by  a  French  ship.  But  he  was  never  to  return  to 
Abyssinia.  Still  his  influence  remained.  One  of  the 
later  missionaries,  Krapf,  paid  a  tribute  to  him,  saying 
that  "he  had  been  the  only  man  who  had  been  truly  in- 
terested in  the  welfare  of  the  Abyssinians,  and  who, 
without  fear,  had  told  the  truth  to  everybody."  Later, 
when  in  Germany  on  furlough,  he  helped  the  Basle  Mis- 


THE  TRANSLATIONS  35 

sionary  Society  prepare  missionaries  for  an  industrial 
mission  in  Abyssinia,  as  he  taught  them  the  Amharic  lan- 
guage. He  remained  at  Bombay  till  1863,  when  he  came 
back  to  Germany,  and  died  in  1864,  and  was  buried  at 
Kornthal,  in  Wurtemberg.  To  his  missionary  son, 
Charles,  who  succeeded  him  at  Bombay,  he  said :  "You, 
Charles,  be  valiant,  for  an  exceedingly  glorious  work 
has  been  entrusted  to  you.  Pray  daily  for  new  strength 
to  execute  it." 

This  wonderful  history  of  the  translations  of  tlie 
Heidelberg  reveals  that  the  catechism  is  one  of  the  most 
widely  circulated  of  books.  It  is  to-day  the  catechism 
in  use  by  at  least  six  millions  of  adherents  and  by  per- 
haps eight  millions.  The  extent  of  its  use  has  only  been 
limited  by  the  extent  of  the  world.  It  evidently,  almost 
as  soon  as  it  appeared,  met  a  felt  want  of  the  Christian 
world,  or  it  would  not  have  spread  so  rapidly.  Its  high 
position  among  Protestant  catechisms  is  shown  by  the 
way  in  which  it  took  the  place  of  other  catechisms,  and 
good  ones,  too.  Thus  it  succeeded  Calvin's  in  Hungary 
and  Scotland,  Pezel's  in  Bremen,  the  Zweibriicken  cate- 
chism at  Zweibriicken,  etc.  It  seems  to  have  had  some- 
thing that  they  lacked. 

What,  then,  has  made  the  Heidelberg  such  a  popular 
religious  book?  We  believe  that  it  was  because  it  was 
so  essentially  Biblical, — so  true  to  the  Bible.  Jesus  once 
said:  "The  words  that  I  speak  unto  you,  they  are  life," 
(John  6:  63.)  The  Bible  contains  His  "Wonderful 
Words  of  Life,"  and  the  Heidelberg  catechism  is  the 
best  echo  of  its  words.  And,  like  the  Bible,  it  speaks  with 
authority,  because  based  on  the  Word  of  God. 

And  as  the  catechism  has  been  so  true  to  the  Bible, 
so  also  it  has  been  so  human,  too, — that  is,  so  true  to 
human  nature.     True  to  God,  it  is  also  so  true  to  man. 


36  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

Other  catechisms  there  were  that  were  splendid  state- 
ments of  intellectual  truth  or  contained  fine  rules  for 
ethical  living.  But  the  Heidelberg  has  something  these 
others  had  not,  and  therefore  supplanted  some  of  them. 
For  it  was  not  one-sided,  but  whole-hearted,  taking  in 
all — the  head,  the  heart  and  the  will.  It  began  with 
religion  as  a  comfort  and  ended  with  a  prayer.  And  all 
through,  pulsating  so  loud  that  one  can  hear  the  heart- 
beats, is  the  loving  heart  of  Christ  as  that  love  culminated 
in  his  sacrifice  for  us.  The  catechism  meets  and  satisfies 
the  whole  human  heart.  Are  we  sad,  it  begins  with 
comfort;  are  we  sinful,  it  points  to  a  Saviour.  Do  we 
want  communion,  it  offers  the  sacraments  as  seals  of 
God's  grace.  Do  we  want  hope  hereafter,  it  offers 
heaven,  whose  eternal  life,  it  says,  is  begun  here.  No 
wonder  the  catechism  spread  thus  universally. 


evc(ngelil<q«reformatq  til<eji« 
mo  vaii^ams. 


Motto:  flVisak^  meginkite,  ir 
kas  gera  yra,  palaikykite". 
(1  Tess.  5,  21). 


i ^ ^-~ 

SU  PRIED AIS: 

3.  Tntmpa  hazayiios  iatorija.  2.  Apie  sventq  raStq. 

3.  Tihejimu  sulyginimas. 


VIL^^IUS, 

M.  Kuktos  epaustuve,  Dvorcova  4 
1909. 


The  title-page  of  the  Heidelberg  catechism  in  the  Lithaiianian 
language.     See  page  8. 


PART  II 

THE    SOURCES  OF  THE  CATECHISM 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  PREVIOUS  CATECHISMS 

The  study  of  the  sources  of  the  Heidelberg  catechism 
has  recently  become  a  prominent  subject.  The  old  view 
was  that  Ursinus  and  Olevianus  were  the  original  authors 
of  the  work.  But  the  latest  view  is  that  the  catechism 
was  not  the  product  of  two  men  only,  but  of  a  com- 
mission appointed  by  the  Elector  Frederick  HI  and 
taken  from  the  court,  the  university  and  the  church. 
This  commission,  however,  gave  the  preparation  of  the 
book  to  Ursinus  and  Olevianus,  who  were  the  main 
authors.* 

But  this  subject  has  been  still  further  pursued,  and 
now  the  view  is  that  the  catechism  was  not  original  with 
Ursinus  and  Olevianus,  but  that  much  of  it  was  the  prod- 
uct of  many  previous  catechisms,  which  these  two 
authors  utilized  in  preparing  it.  Prof.  M.  A.  Gooszen, 
of  Leyden  university  (De  Heidelberg  Catechismus,  1890), 
and  Prof.  A.  Lange,  of  Halle  university  (Der  Heidel- 
berger  Catechismus,  1907)  have  elaborately  shown  how 
they  used  the  previous  catechisms.  This  does  not  cast 
any  discredit  on  the  ability  of  Ursinus  and  Olevianus.  It 
rather  enhances  their  credit,  as  it  reveals  their  great 
knowledge  of  the  previous  catechetical  literature  of  their 
day  and  their  wonderful  ability  in  arranging  it,  and  add- 
ing to  it  so  as  not  merely  to  produce  a  splendid  mosaic  of 
others'  thoughts,  but  also  an  original  production,  both 

*  For  proofs  of  this  view,  see  Hauck's  "Real-Encyclopedia," 
article  "Heidelberg  Catechism." 

39 


40  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

in  ideal  and  in  method. 

The  truth  is,  there  has  grown  up  a  sort  of  higher 
criticism  of  the  Heidelberg  catechism.  With  the  higher 
criticism  of  the  Bible  the  world  has  become  somewhat 
familiar,  but  how  about  the  higher  criticism  of  the  Hei- 
delberg catechism.  There  is,  however,  this  difference  to 
be  noted  between  these  two  higher  criticisms.  In  the 
case  of  the  Bible  there  is  no  contemporary  or  previous 
literature  in  the  same  language,  so  that  one  can  safely 
make  comparisons.  The  Old  Testament  is  practically  the 
only  book  in  the  Hebrew  language.  But  how  different 
it  is  with  the  Heidelberg  catechism,  for  there  is  an  abund- 
ance of  catechisms  to  lay  alongside  of  it  for  comparison. 
Because  of  this,  the  higher  criticism  of  the  Bible  is  pre- 
dominantly subjective,  that  of  the  catechism,  objective. 
The  higher  criticism  of  the  Bible  has  to  be  evolved  out 
of  the  minds  of  the  critics, — out  of  some  speculative  Ger- 
man's or  Dutchman's  mind, — because  there  are  no  ex- 
ternal sources.  It  is,  therefore,  the  merest  hypothesis. 
But  the  higher  criticism  of  the  Heidelberg  catechism  is 
objective,  a  comparison  of  that  catechism  with  other  cate- 
chisms previous  to  it.  This  gives  us  some  real  basis  for 
higher  criticism.  Compared  with  this,  how  weak  and 
unproved  the  higher  criticism  of  the  Bible  seems.  We, 
therefore,  set  aside  the  higher  criticism  of  the  Bible  as 
unproved,  but  of  the  catechism  as  proved.  And  we  enter 
on  our  task. 

But  before  entering  on  our  task  it  might  be  well  to  call 

attention  to  the  reason  why  this  comparison  of  catechisms 

,•  is  so  easy  and  so  sure.  It  is  because  all  the  catechisms  of 

I  the  sixteenth  century  were  built  more  or  less  around  the 

%    same  four  subjects, — the  creed,  the  Decalogue,  the  Lord's 

Prayer  and  the  sacraments.    One  has  simply  to  compare 

the  corresponding  answers  in  the  different  catechisms  to 


ISTRUZIONE  CRISTIANA 


Quests  latruzione  "  6  un  piccolo  catechismo  per  domanda  e  n- 
sposta,  scritto  in  biiona  lingua  italiaiia  e  cou  do'triua  evangelica  ' 
Cosi  dice  il  Catalogo  della  collczioiie  Guicciardmiaiia  stanipato  i^er 
cura  del  onto  Piero  Guicciardini.  E  soggiuiiget  "  Non  lie  coiio- 
sco  r  autore,  nfe  per  qual  chiesa  cristiana  6  stato  fatto.  "  Allettati 
da  questo  giudizio,  abbiamo  trascritta  1'  Istruzione  in  discorso.  Is 
quale  conbiste  in  uu'aurea  tradu/ioi.e  del  rinomato  cateoljisiiio  ili 
Kidelberga  uscito  a  staiiipa  I'anno  1563.  Siamo  lieti  di  convcniro 
col  coute  Piero  Guicciardini  die  la  dottiiua  di  questo  catechisnio 
6  evangelica,  e  non  dubitiamo  die,  siccome  fu  reputato  utile  dagli 
avi  riforniatori  che  lo  tradussero,  cosi  debba  riuscire  a'  nostri  di 
per  le  Cliiese  e  le  Scuole  specialmente. 


Dimanda  —  Quale  e  la  tua  unica  consolazione  nclla 
vita  e  nella  morte? 

Bisposta  —  Clie  io  di  corpo  e  anima,  tanto  in  vita 
quanto  in  morte,  non  sia  di  me  stesso  ma  del  mio  fe- 
dele  Salvatore  Gesti  Cristo,  il  quale  col  suo  preziosissi- 
rao  sangue  conipiutamente  lia  pagato  per  i  miei  peccati  e 
mi  ha  liberato  d'  ogui  possanza  del  Diavolo,  e  conserva 
di  modo  che  senza  la  volontc\  del  mio  Padre  celeste  non 
mi  pub  cader  pur  un  pelo  dal  capo,  anzi  bisogua  che 
ogni  cosa  mi  serva  a  salute,  e  perci5  mi  assicura  della 
vita  eterna  per  il  suo  S.  Spirito  e  mi  rende  pronto  a 


The  first  question  and  answer  of  the  Heidelberg  catechism 
in  the  Italian  language.     See  pages  8-!). 


THE  PREVIOUS  CATECHISMS  41 

see  wherein  they  agree  or  differ. 

To  understand  our  subject  still  further,  it  might  per- 
haps be  well  to  give  a  brief  history  of  the  previous  cate- 
chisms. The  first  Protestant  catechism,  according  to 
Professor  Lang,  was  a  Dialogue-book  by  Rev.  John 
Bader,  of  Landau,  1526,  which  inclined  to  the  Reformed. 
In  1527  there  was  a  catechism  published  at  St.  Gall  and 
used  there  until  the  Heidelberg  was  introduced  in  1615. 
It  turns  out  to  be  the  catechism  of  the  Bohemian  Brethren 
slightly  changed.  The  catechism  of  Ecolampadius,  the 
reformer  of  Basle,  comes  next.  In  1526,  he  published  an 
address  to  the  confirmed,  and  then  a  catechism,  which 
appeared  somewhere  between  that  time  and  1529,  when 
it  was  incorporated  in  the  Church-Order  of  Basle.  On 
the  Lutheran  side,  before  Luther's  Shorter  catechism, 
1529,  which  marked  an  epoch  in  catechetical  literature, 
the  main  one  that  had  appeared  was  by  Brenz,  the  re- 
former of  south  Germany   (1528). 

About  this  time  the  catechisms,  from  which  the  Hei- 
delberg was  especially  drawn,  began  to  appear.  There 
were  so  many  catechisms  of  that  time  that  we  must  limit 
ourselves  only  to  those  directly  related  to  the  Heidelberg. 
For  there  were  scores  of  catechisms  published  in  Switzer- 
land and  Germany  up  to  1563  and  the  end  of  the  sixteenth 
century.    They  fill  several  thousand  pages.* 

For  the  sake  of  the  English  readers,  to  whom  the 
Dutch  books  of  Professor  Gooszen  and  the  German  work 
of  Professor  Lang  are  inaccessible,  we  may  here  give  a 

*  See  Cohr's  "The  Efforts  at  Protestant  Catechisms  Before 
Luther's  Shorter  Catechism" ;  in  "Monumenta  Germaniae  Peda- 
gogica,"  4  vols.,  XX-XXIII,  Berlin,  1900-1902;  and  Reu,  "The 
Sources  of  the  History  of  Ecclesiastical  Instruction  in  the  Prot- 
estant Church  of  Germany  Between  1530  and  1600,"  Vol.  I, 
South  German  Catechisms;  vol.  2,  Middle  German  Catechisms 
Gutersloh,  1904  and  1911. 


42  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

brief  summary  of  the  sources  of  our  catechism.     There 
were,  in  the  main,  four  sources  of  the  Heidelberg: 

1.  The  Strasburg  catechisms  by  Capito,  1527;  Bucer, 
1534,  and  Zell,  1535  and  1537. 

2.  The  Zurich  catechisms  of  Leo  Juda,  1534,  1535 
and  1538,  and  of  BuUinger,  1559. 

3.  Calvin's  catechism,  1537  and  1541.  Sometimes 
also  Calvin's  "Institutes." 

4.  The  Lasco  catechisms,  Lasco's,  1551 ;  Micronius', 
1552;  the  London  compend,  1553,  and  the  Emden,  1554. 

This  subject  may  be  considered  in  three  different 
ways:     i,  Biographical;  2,  Historical;  3,  Topical. 

I.  Biographical.  The  two  authors  of  our  catechism 
were  so  situated  in  their  lives  that  they  came  into  con- 
tact with  many  catechisms.  They  were,  therefore  able, 
before  writing  the  Heidelberg,  to  make  a  study  of  the 
catechetical  literature  of  that  day.  This  was  true  in  the 
case  of  Ursinus  more  than  of  Olevianus.  Olevianus  had, 
in  his  previous  life,  come  into  contact  with  the  catechism 
of  Calvin  while  in  France,  and  especially  at  Geneva,  where 
he  studied  under  Calvin.  His  predilections  were  all  Cal- 
vinistic,  and  this  will  appear  in  his  share  of  the  author- 
ship of  our  catechism.  Ursinus,  however,  had  had  a 
more  wandering  life,  and  had  come  into  contact  with 
nearly  all  the  great  catechisms.  When  he  studied  at 
Wittenberg  he  came  into  contact  with  the  catechisms  of 
Luther  of  1529,  and  the  Latin  catechism  of  Melancthon, 
1532.  Then  he,  in  his  travels,  came  into  contact  with 
Calvin's  catechism  and  with  the  catechisms  of  Leo  Juda 
and  Bullinger  during  his  stay  at  Zurich.  He,  therefore, 
had  a  wide  acquaintance  with  catechetical  literature 
before  he  came  to  Heidelberg.  When  he  returned  to 
Breslau  to  teach,  in  his  "Introductory  Address"  (1558), 
he  has  much  to  say  of  catechisms  and  catechization.  This 


THE  PREVIOUS  CATECHISMS  43 

shows  that  his  attention  was  early  drawn  to  that  subject. 

Then  after  Olevianus  and  Ursinus  had  come  to  Hei- 
delberg they  came  into  contact  with  the  Dutch  refugees 
from  London  and  Frankfort,  who  had  brought  with  them 
the  different  Lasco  catechisms.  Indeed  Ursinus,  when  a 
student  at  Wittenberg,  had  already  become  personally 
acquainted  with  Lasco. 

All  this  served  to  prepare  them  for  their  task  of  writ- 
ing our  catechism.  Besides,  both  of  them  had  first  started 
out  as  teachers  of  the  young,  Ursinus  at  Breslau  and 
Olevianus  at  Treves.  The  first  problem  that  had  been 
forced  upon  them  was  the  instruction  of  the  youth  in 
religion.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  Ursinus,  in  his  "In- 
troductory Address"  at  Breslau  (1558),  gives  a  defini- 
tion of  a  catechism  as*' 'a  sum  of  the  doctrine  of  faith 
and  love  once  delivered  by  the  prophets  and  apostles — 
a  sum  of  Christianity  briefly,  orderly  and  plainly  com- 
posed," a  definition  which  may  be  the  germ  from  which 
the  Heidelberg  sprang  four  years  later.  All  this  gave  a 
bent  to  their  minds  to  study  the  subject  of  catechetical 
education.  And  out  of  all  this  came  our  Heidelberg  cate- 
chism. Thus  the  providence  of  God  prepared  them  as 
he  had  done  Moses  at  Sinai  and  Paul  in  Arabia  for  their 
future  lifework. 

2.  Historical.  There  are  two  ways  of  studying  his- 
torically, forwards  or  backwards.  We  can,  according 
to  the  first,  begin  at  a  certain  point  and  trace  history  for- 
wards, chronologically,  up  to  a  certain  point  as  its  culmi- 
nation. Or  we  can  take  up  a  certain  event  in  history  and 
trace  it  back  to  its  sources.  The  one  is  the  reverse  of 
the  other,  but  both  methods  are  suggestive  and  serve  to 
complement  each  other.  We  shall  try  both  in  this  study 
of  the  sources  of  the  catechism. 


44  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

(a)  comparison  of  ursinus'  two  catechisms  with  the 
heidelberg 

We  will  take  the  forward  method  first  and  begin  with 
the  catechisms  that  were  the  immediate  predecessors  of 
the  Heidelberg.  There  was  an  old  tradition,  based  in 
a  statement  by  one  of  the  historians  of  the  catechism, 
that  Ursinus  wrote  two  catechisms  before  he  wrote  the 
Heidelberg,  and  that  Olevianus  wrote  one,  and  that 
out  of  these  the  Heidelberg  was  made.  The  reference  to 
Olevianus  seems  to  have  been  an  error,  for  no  previous 
catechism  of  Olevianus  has  been  found.  One  of  the 
historians  of  the  Heidelberg,  Seisen,  thinks  it  refers  to 
the  Firm  Foundation  (Fester  Grund)  of  Olevianus.  But 
that  work  did  not  appear  until  after  the  catechism.* 
Again,  his  "Farmers'  Catechism,"  in  his  "Covenant  of 
Grace,"  also  appeared  later  than  the  Heidelberg.  So  this 
idea  about  Olevianus  must  be  given  up. 

It  remains,  therefore,  to  examine  the  two  catechisms 
which  Ursinus  wrote  before  the  Heidelberg — namely,  his 
Larger  and  Smaller  catechisms,  both  of  which  in  Latin, 
are  at  the  beginning  of  his  published  "Works."  How  he 
came  to  write  these  catechisms  has  been  a  question.  The 
best  theory  proposed  has  been  that  he  was  led  to  write 
the  first — namely,  the  Larger,  for  use  in  his  theological 
instructions  in  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Heidelberg, 
named  the  "College  of  Wisdom."  He,  therefore,  com- 
posed his  Larger  catechism,  which  was  admirably  adapted 
to  that  purpose.  Then,  later,  he  prepared  an  abbreviation 
of  it  called  the  Shorter  catechism,  and  submitted  it  to 

*  "Fester  Grund"  was  not  begun  until  the  fall  of  1563 ;  for 
on  October  23,  1563,  Olevianus  wrote  to  Bullinger,  "I  am  now 
at  work  on  a  larger  catechism,  in  which  I  shall  follow  the 
order  of  the  smaller."  It  was  therefore  based  on  the  Heidelberg 
instead  of  the  Heidelberg  being  based  on  it. 


THE  PREVIOUS  CATECHISMS  45 

Frederick  III  for  use  in  the  Church  of  the  Palatinate. 
The  Smaller  was,  therefore,  used  as  the  direct  basis  of 
the  Heidelberg,  and  the  Larger  was  also  used,  but  not 
so  directly. 

Let  us  pause  for  a  moment  on  the  Larger  catechism. 
In  it  the  central  idea  is  that  of  the  covenant.*  This  cate- 
chism is  of  especial  interest,  because  we  can  see  in  it 
most  clearly  the  sources.  For  the  ideas  of  the  catechism 
become  so  modified  and  are  so  thrown  together  in  the 
later  catechisms,  the  Smaller  and  the  Heidelberg,  that 
it  is  often  sometimes  difficult  to  trace  them  back.  The 
foundation  of  this  Larger  catechism  is  undoubtedly  the 
catechism  of  Calvin.  This  may  seem  strange,  for  Ursinus 
was  not  a  pupil  of  Calvin,  but  of  Melancthon.  But  it  is, 
nevertheless,  true.  Of  the  323  questions  of  the  catechism, 
173  refer  back  to  Calvin's  catechism,  more  than  half.f 
The  Lasco  catechisms  come  next  with  58  references  to 
them.     There  were  also  28  references  to  Bullinger. 

But  where  does  Melancthon  come  in.  There  are  31 
of  the  answers  that  refer  to  Melancthon's  "Considerations 
of  Ordinances."  Their  comparative  fewness  is  the  more 
remarkable,  not  only  because  Ursinus  had  been  a  scholar 
of  Melancthon,  but  because  he  had  used  this  work  of 
Melancthon  in  his  first  school  at  Breslau.  But  it  seems 
that  when  Ursinus  later  went  to  Zurich  he  gave  up  Mel- 
ancthonianism  for  the  Reformed,  indeed  he  says  so  in  a 
letter  to  Dr.  Crato  at  that  time.  And  yet  the  influence 
of  Melancthon  modifies  some  of  the  harder  characteristics 
of  Calvinism  in  it. 

*  For  the  source  of  this  idea  of  the  covenant,  whether  from 
Bullinger  as  Gooszen  says,  or  from  Calvin  and  Melancthon. 
see  Lang,  "Der  Heidelberger  Katechismus,"  preface,  64-65. 

t  Our  figures  concerning  the  sources  of  the  catechism  are  here 
and  hereafter  mainly,  though  not  entirely,  based  on  Professor 
Lang's  statements. 


46  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

Some  of  the  answers  are  taken  almost  word  for  word 
from  these  sources.*  There  are  22  references  to  the 
Strasburg  catechisms  of  Bucer  and  Zell,  17  to  the  cate- 
chisms of  Juda.  And  24  refer  to  Calvin's  Institutes, 
which,  added  to  the  references  to  his  catechism,  would 
make  the  total  references  to  Calvin  197,  about  two-thirds 
of  the  catechism.  Evidently  there  was  a  strong  sym- 
pathy of  Ursinus  for  Calvin,  their  minds  being  very  much 
of  the  same  analytic,  dialectic  type. 

Let  us  turn,  now,  to  the  Smaller  catechism  of  Ursinus. 
This  has  only  108  questions,  and  is  about  one-fifth  less 
than  our  Heidelberg.  A  good  many  of  the  answers  of 
the  Larger  are  omitted,  and  some  of  them  are  thrown 
together  in  one  answer.  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  un- 
important subjects  of  the  Larger  catechism  are  omitted, 
as  the  discussions  of  theological  points,  which  were  suit- 
able for  Ursinus'  school,  but  not  so  well  adapted  for 
popular  use.  The  arrangement  of  the  catechism,  how- 
ever, is  entirely  different,  being  like  the  Heidelberg — 
threefold.  The  idea  of  the  covenant  is  given  up,  indeed 
appears  only  in  one  or  two  places.  Also  the  Lasco  cate- 
chisms become  more  prominent  as  sources. 

When,  finally,  we  come  to  the  Heidelberg,  we  find 
that  it  is  mainly  taken  from  Ursinus'  Shorter  catechism. 
Our  catechism  is  really  only  a  revision  of  the  Shorter. 
Ninety-nine  of  its  answers  are  evidently  taken  from  the 
Shorter, — that  is,  four-fifths  of  our  catechism  is  directly 
or  indirectly  taken  from  the  Shorter  Ursinus.  Outside 
of  the  references  of  the  Heidelberg  to  the  Smaller  and 
Larger  Ursinus,  there  are  7  answers  that  refer  to  the 
Strasburg  catechism,  12  to  Calvin,  13  to  the  Zurich  and 

*  Thus  42  and  120  are  taken  word  for  word  from  Melanc- 
thon,  59-61  are  almost  verbally  from  Calvin's  answer  20,  and 
125  is  from  the  Emden  (45). 


\!i^^^)i 


'^     t^f bo- tTlilf fa  tPclfcpe  *^ 


^1^1 


The    title-page    of    the    Heidelberg    catechism    in    the    Bohemian 
Language,  see  page  !'. 


THE  PREVIOUS  CATECHISMS  47 

20  to  the  Lasco  catechisms. 

As  we  thus  examine  these  three  catechisms  we  are 
especially  struck  with  the  differences  between  the  Larger 
Ursinus  and  the  other  two,  not  merely  in  the  size,  but 
in  the  subject  matter.  The  idea  of  the  covenant  is  promi- 
nent in  the  Larger.  In  the  other  two  there  is  the  same 
threefold  division:  i,  Sin;  2,  Redemption;  3,  Thankful- 
ness. In  passing  from  the  Larger  to  the  Smaller  there 
is  an  entire  change  in  the  centre  and  the  perspective  of 
the  catechism.  It  has  been  suggested  that  the  threefold 
division  of  the  Smaller  and  of  the  Heidelberg  was  the 
logical  result  of  making  the  centre  of  the  catechism  to  be 
the  idea  of  comfort. 

But  the  better  solution  seems  to  be  suggested  by 
Lang  and  Reu,  that  Ursinus  probably  gained  the  idea 
from  a  sort  of  catechism,  or  better,  a  book  of  religious  in- 
struction, published  at  Heidelberg  in  1558,  entitled,  "A 
brief  and  orderly  statement  of  the  true  doctrine  of  our 
holy  Christian  faith  for  house-fathers."  It  was  pub- 
lished by  John  Khole,  and  was  a  re-publication  of  a 
catechetical  work  by  Callus,  of  Ratisbon,  a  few  years 
before.  This  book  perhaps  made  such  an  impression  on 
Ursinus,  between  the  time  of  the  writing  of  his  Larger 
and  Smaller  catechisms,  that  he  changed  the  order  of 
the  catechism.  He  introduced  its  threefold  division,  but 
somewhat  altered  and  improved.  We  have  had  the  privi- 
lege of  examining  this  catechism  and  copying  it  in  Heidel- 
berg.    Its  three  divisions  are: 

1.  The  law,  which  included  sin  and  penitence. 

2.  The  gospel  or  faith. 

3.  Cood  works. 

This  is  nearly  the  same  as  the  Heidelberg — i,  Sin;  2, 
Redemption ;  3,  Good  Works. 

The  first  part  of  tliis  little  book  is  divided  into  four 


48  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

parts — original  sin,  actual  sin,  punishment  of  sin  and 
the  law  as  a  schoolmaster  to  reveal  our  sin. 

The  second  part  describes  the  work  of  Christ's  re- 
demption and  how  we  lay  hold  of  it — namely,  by  faith. 
Faith  comes  by  the  preaching  of  the  word  and  the  use 
of  the  sacraments.  The  book  is  Lutheran  on  the  sacra- 
ments, and  like  the  Lutheran  catechisms,  includes  con- 
fession with  the  sacraments. 

The  third  part  speaks  of  good  works  as  the  fruit  of 
faith,  and  then  has  a  reference  to  the  Christian's  cross 
here,  and  his  eternal  joy  hereafter. 

This  threefold  division  Ursinus  adopted,  but  he  also 
improved  on  it.  The  first  part,  he  does  not  like  its  name, 
"the  law,"  for  that  is  cold,  but  he  names  it  '"misery," 
which  is  concrete  and  reveals  the  result  of  breaking  the 
law.  The  second  part  of  the  Heidelberg,  which  is  on  re- 
demption, is  more  like  this  book.  And  in  the  third,  Ur- 
sinus adds  to  its  "good  works,"  the  motive  for  them, — 
namely,  "thankfulness."  Indeed  in  the  first,  as  well  as  in 
the  third  part,  Ursinus,  like  Christ  in  the  "Sermon  on  the 
Mount,"  goes  down  below  the  outward  act  to  the  inward 
motive.  Thus,  in  the  first  part,  he  does  not  stop  with  the 
law,  but  he  goes  to  the  motive  which  leads  to  the  break- 
ing of  the  law, — namely,  hatred  to  God ;  and  in  the  third 
part,  instead  of  good  works,  he  gives  the  motive  for 
them, — namely,  thankfulness. 

In  studying  these  three  catechisms,  it  is  important 
to  notice  two  prominent  doctrines  in  them — namely,  the 
one  on  which  Calvin  and  Melancthon  differed,  and  the 
one  on  which  they  somewhat  neared  each  other.  The 
first  is  the  doctrine  of  election,  the  second  the  doctrine 
of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

On  the  doctrine  of  election  Calvin  and  Melancthon 
differed.     Melancthon  held  to  synergism,  while  Calvin 


THE  PREVIOUS  CATECHISMS 


49 


held  to  monergism  and  election.  One  of  the  most  notice- 
able peculiarities  in  this  comparison  of  these  three  cate- 
chisms is  the  way  in  which  the  doctrine  of  election  is 
treated.  In  the  Larger  catechism  of  Ursinus,  election  is 
frequently  referred  to.  When  one  reads  this  Larger  cate- 
chism there  can  be  no  question  about  Ursinus'  Calvinism 
on  election.  Election  is  referred  to  in  Question  no, 
which  asks  "What  is  the  sanctification  of  the  elect?" 
In  113  the  Church  is  said  to  be  "the  congregation  of  the 
elect."  In  123  it  says:  "For  whomsoever  God  has 
elected  to  eternal  life."  Answer  125  speaks  of  "the 
Church  elected  to  eternal  life."  Answer  218  says :  "We 
must  not  do  so  nor  does  any  elect  do  so."  In  answer 
219  the  question  asks : 

"But  since  none  are  saved  except  God,  who  has,  from 
eternity,  elected  to  salvation,  how  can  you  believe  that 
the  promise  of  grace  belongs  to  you,  when  you  do  not 
know  that  you  are  elect?" 

"Just  because  I  embrace  with  true  faith  the  grace  of- 
fered me.  From  this  most  certain  argument  I  know  that 
I  am  elect  by  God  to  eternal  life,  and  shall  be  kept  for- 
ever. For  if  he  had  not  elected  me  from  eternity,  he 
would  never  have  given  me  the  spirit  of  adoption." 

Election  is,  therefore,  referred  to  in  six  answers. 

Let  us  now  turn  to  the  Smaller  catechism  and  see 
what  it  has  to  say  about  election.  Here  we  find  it  re- 
ferred to  in  eight  answers.  In  answer  17,  Ursinus  speaks 
of  God  "upholding  and  governing  all  according  to  the 
eternal  decree  of  his  will."  Answer  38  says,  "he  will  de- 
liver me  with  all  the  elect."  Answer  39  says :  "the  Holy 
Ghost  is  sent  to  the  hearts  of  all  the  elect."  Answer  40 
speaks  of  the  Church  as  a  "company  elect  unto  ever- 
lasting life."  Answer  43  says :  "the  body  will  live  for- 
ever with  him  and  all  the  elect."     Answer  50  says : 

"Because  God  elected  me  to  eternal  life  in  Christ  be- 


50  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

fore  the  foundation  of  the  world  were  laid,  and  has  re- 
generated me  by  the  special  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Otherwise  such  is  the  depravity  of  my  nature  that  I, 
knowing  and  willing  in  my  sins,  may  perish,  as  do  the  re- 
probate multitude." 
Answer  51  asks: 

"Does  not  this  belief,  which  prompts  you  to  declare 
that  you  have  been  elected  to  eternal  life,  free  you  from 
responsibility,  and  make  you  less  devoted  to  the  daily 
exercise  of  repentance?" 

"Not  at  all,  but  it  kindles  in  me  rather  the  desire  for 
persevering  and  growing  in  piety.  Since,  without  genu- 
ine conversion  to  God,  I  am  not  able  to  console  myself 
with  the  assurance  of  my  election ;  and  the  more  sure 
I  am  of  salvation  the  more  anxious  I  am  to  show  my 
gratitude  to  God." 

Answer  52  goes  on  to  add : 

"But  are  you  not  troubled  with  doubts  about  your  sal- 
vation when  you  are  told  that  none  are  saved  except  the 
elect?" 

"Not  in  the  least,  for  this  strong  consolation  is  espe- 
cially present  to  me  in  all  temptations.  For  if,  with  a 
sincere  affection  of  heart,  I  desire  to  trust  and  obey  God. 
I  ought  to  regard  this  as  the  surest  proof  that  I  belong 
to  the  number  of  those  who  have  been  elected  to  ever- 
lasting life,  and  therefore  can  never  perish,  no  matter 
how  weak  my  faith  may  be." 

From  these  answers  it  is  very  evident  that  Ursinus 
was  not  a  Melancthonian,  as  Revs.  Drs.  Nevin,  Schaff, 
Rupp  and  others  in  our  Church  have  erroneously  held. 
Ursinus  shows  here  that  not  only  was  he  a  Calvinist, 
but  that  he  held  to  the  double  predestination,  for  he 
speaks  of  it  in  the  Smaller  catechism,  as  answer  50 
shows.  Indeed,  he  is  stronger  in  his  statements  on  elec- 
tion in  these  first  two  catechisms  than  is  Calvin  himself 
in  his  catechism,  and  is  even  more  like  Calvin's  Institutes, 
than  like  Calvin's  catechism. 


llChriftian 
CATECHISEM 

fuainter  chcl  vainufitoinlas 

BafcJgias  da  Heidelberg^  &c 

qutfi  in  tnots  lous  del 

EvangcH, 

Huojpt  dan  of  yertien  in  7^^ 
mannfch  ^  cun  hgers  lens 

trxs 

CASPARLIM  FRITZU^C 
da  quaift  temp  Mtniftcr  del 

pl^ed  cia  Dreu  in  Saniocclan, 

Cttn^rivilegio  dalUs  iltufi.  Refor^ 
nrndas  trais  Lya$. 


Stampo  in  Scuol  trars 

JACOB  DORTA    V.  D.  M. 

Anno  MVCLXXXFL 

The  title-page  of  the  Heidelberg  catechism  in  the  Romansch 
language.     See  page  10. 


THE  PREVIOUS  CATECHISMS  51 

And  just  here  the  interesting  question  arises,  why 
Ursinus,  who  expressed  himself  so  strongly  on  elec- 
tion in  his  two  previous  catechisms,  should  say  so  little 
about  it  in  the  Heidelberg.  Others  have  found  the  doc- 
trine of  election  in  five  or  six  places  in  our  catechism, 
but  we  can  find  it  mainly  in  three, — in  answer  52  and 
answer  54,  where  the  "elect"  are  spoken  of,  though  the 
word  in  our  translation  is  the  word  "chosen"  instead  of 
"elect."  The  other  place  is  in  answer  26,  where  the  words 
"eternal  cousel"  occur,  which,  according  to  the  sources  of 
the  answers  as  well  as  to  Ursinus  elsewhere,  refer  to 
God's  eternal  decree.  Now  why  was  the  doctrine  of  elec- 
tion so  modified  in  the  Heidelberg?  Gooszen  suggests 
that  it  was  due  to  Bullinger's  influence,  for  he  enlarges 
Bullinger's  influence  on  catechism  to  a  maximum.  We  be- 
lieve election  was  modified  for  two  reasons : 

1.  The  doctrine  of  election  was  too  profound  and 
scholastic  a  doctrine  for  practical  purposes,  especially  for 
the  teaching  of  the  youth. 

2.  It  was  perhaps  modified,  at  the  suggestion  of  the 
Elector,  as  was  done  in  the  case  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  so 
as  not  to  give  ofifense  to  the  Lutherans  of  the  Palatinate, 
who  might  make  trouble  when  it  came  to  the  adoption 
of  the  catechism  by  the  Church  of  the  Palatinate. 
Yet  enough  of  it  is  left  in  the  catechism  to  show  that 
election  is  part  and  parcel  of  the  gospel,  but  on  its  posi- 
tive side  and  viewed  as  a  comfort.  For  election  can  be 
viewed  from  two  standpoints,  from  that  of  God's  sover- 
eignty, and  also  from  that  of  God's  grace.  It  is  the  latter 
view  that  makes  it  a  comfort,  and  it  is  this  view  that  is 
incorporated  in  the  catechism. 

The  second  doctrine  that  is  interesting  to  study  in 
these  three  catechisms  is  the  Lord's  Supper,  especially 
that  phase  of  it  that  relates  to  the  way  in  which  Christ's 


52  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

body  is  present  in  the  sacrament.     The  Larger  catechism 
of  Ursinus  (answer  300)  reads  thus: 

"Is  to  eat  Christ  merely  to  become  partakers  of  the 
merits  of  Christ  and  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit?" 

"It  is  not  this  alone,  but  also  the  communication  of  the 
person  and  substance  of  Christ  himself,  for  his  divine 
nature  dwells  in  us,  but  his  body  is  united  with  our 
bodies,  so  that  we  are  one  with  him." 

This  is  pretty  high  doctrine,  and  would  suit  the  Luth- 
erans, who  emphasized  the  presence  of  the  substance  of 
Christ.  Still  that  high  phrase  "substance  of  Christ"  is 
somewhat  equivocal  and  may  have  been  for  that  reason 
used  by  Ursinus,  for  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  he 
had  only  just  come  to  the  College  of  Wisdom  and  had 
to  be  careful  how  far  he  departed  from  Lutheran  ortho- 
doxy. He  could  use  "the  substance  of  Christ"  and  the 
Lutherans  could  give  it  a  Lutheran  meaning.  And  yet 
that  phrase  is  given  quite  another  meaning  in  Calvin's 
catechism,  which,  in  answer  35,  says : 

"If  we  will  have  the  substance  of  the  sacrament,  we 
must  lift  up  our  hearts  to  heaven,  where  our  Saviour 
Christ  is  in  the  glory  of  his  Father,  etc." 

Calvin  thus  put  Christ's  body  in  heaven,  while  the 
Lutherans,  in  using  that  phrase,  put  it  in  the  Lord's 
Supper. 

Let  us  now  turn  to  the  Smaller  catechism  of  Ursinus. 
Here  we  find  (Answer  68)  this  peculiarly  Lutheran 
phrase,  "substance  of  Christ,"  left  out,  and  we  have  68: 

"But  do  the  bread  and  wine  become  the  real  body  of 
Christ?" 

"No,  for  Christ  has  only  one  real  body,  born  of  the 
Virgin  Mary,  crucified  for  us,  dead,  buried,  risen  again, 
ascended  to  heaven,  and  is  now  there  at  the  right  hand 
of  God,  but  is  not  upon  earth,  until  he  comes  again  to 
judge  the  quick  and  dead." 


THE  PREVIOUS  CATECHISMS  53 

This  question  evidently  brings  up  a  new  thought.  It 
was  directed  against  the  new  and  rising  doctrine  of 
ubiquity  among  the  high-Lutherans.  And  probably  it  was 
the  fear  of  this  new  doctrine  that  caused  the  leaving  out 
of  the  phrase  "substance  of  Christ"  in  the  Larger  cate- 
chism. 

Let  us  now  turn  to  the  Heidelberg.  There  is  a  strong 
similarity  between  the  Smaller  and  the  Heidelberg,  and 
yet  there  are  one  or  two  significant  changes.  In  the  Hei- 
delberg the  idea  of  the  sacrament,  as  a  means  of  grace, 
is  retained;  but  the  idea  of  it,  as  a  sign  of  duty  (Pflicht- 
zeichen),  and  as  producing  obedience  to  Christ,  is  omitted. 
We  can  see  why  the  first  is  retained,  although  it  would  be 
more  offensive  to  the  Lutherans,  who  held  that  the  Lord's 
Supper  was  not  only  a  means  of  grace,  but  grace  itself. 
For  the  Lutheran  doctrine  was  the  immediate  presence 
of  Christ,  the  Reformed  the  mediate.*  Why  the  other 
idea  of  the  sacrament,  as  personal  consecration,  is  left 
out,  we  know  not,  but  perhaps  it  was  because  of  the  in- 
creasing emphasis  in  the  Heidelberg  in  both  the  sacra- 
ments on  the  death  of  Christ.  On  the  death  of  Christ 
the  Heidelberg  adds  a  new  question  not  in  either  the 
Larger  or  Smaller,  the  67th,  in  which  it  emphasizes  the 
relation  of  the  sacraments  to  the  death  of  Christ.  This 
emphasis  on  it,  as  a  memorial,  may  have  interfered  with 
its  reference  to  it  as  a  duty. 

And  when  we  come  to  compare  the  exact  phrasing  of 
the  Heidelberg  with  the  Shorter,  we  find  it  uses  a  peculiar 
phrase.  It  says  "the  bread  is  not  changed  into  the  very 
body   of   Christ,    though    agreeably   to   the   nature   and 

*  Luther's  Smaller  catechism  says  the  Lord's  Supper  is  the 
true  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  It  does  not  allow  room  for  any 
means  of  grace,  for  it  is  grace  itself.  The  Lord's  Supper,  as  the 
Reformed  held,  brought  not  merely  "the  benefits  of  Christ's  re- 
demption," but  the  redemption  itself. 


M 


54  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

properties  of  sacraments  it  is  called  the  body  of  Christ." 

"The  Heidelberg  (78)  is  here  not  quite  so  clear  as 
its  predecessor,  the  Shorter,  for  its  phrase,  'according 
to  the  nature  and  properties  of  sacraments,'  is  a  more 
general  statement  than  the  Shorter,  and  also  somewhat 
equivocal." 

The  Shorter  (65)  asks: 

"What  is  it  to  eat  of  Christ's  bodv  and  drink  of  his 
blood?" 

"It  is  by  true  faith  in  Christ  to  receive  from  God  the 
forgiveness  of  sins  and  the  gift  of  righteousness,  on  ac- 
count of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ's  body  and  the  shedding  of 
his  blood.  It  is  also,  through  the  Holy  Spirit  dwelling  at 
the  same  time  in  Christ's  body  (which  is  and  remains  in 
heaven)  and  in  us  (who  are  upon  the  earth)  to  be  united 
to  Christ  our  Lord  so  that  we  are  bone  of  his  bone  and 
flesh  of  his  flesh ;  and  so  having  one  and  the  same  spirit 
(even  as  the  members  of  my  body  have  one  and  the  same 
life)  we  live  and  reign  with  him." 

A  high  sacramentarian  could  put  a  high  meaning  into 
what  was  meant  by  "the  property  of  sacraments,"  and  a 
low  sacramentarian  could  put  a  low  significance  into  it. 
We  wonder  whether  this  somewhat  indefinite  phrase  was 
not  put  into  the  catechism  intentionally,  so  that  those  of 
divergent  views  in  the  Palatinate  might  be  satisfied  by  a 
general  phrase ;  when  they  might  have  gotten  into  a  con- 
troversy over  a  more  definite  statement.  We  can,  how- 
ever, easily  understand  what  it  means  by  seeing  how 
Ursinus  explains  it  in  his  Smaller  catechism,  that  he 
does  not  mean  that  Christ's  humanity  is  on  earth,  but 
in  heaven,  as  indeed  answers  47  and  76  of  our  cate- 
chism say. 

The  doctrine  of  the  sacraments  all  through  the  cate- 
chism is  Calvinistic,  as  the  Larger  catechism  (301)  more 
clearly  states  it: 

"The  Holy  Spirit,  as  an  intermediate  bond  holds  us 


THE  PREVIOUS  CATECHISMS  55 

and  Christ  together,  holding  bodies  distant  from  one 
another  by  the  greatest  interval  much  better  and  more 
firmly,  just  as  the  body  is  joined  together  with  the  head,  or 
grapes  with  a  vine." 

While  we  are  thus  making  comparisons  between  these 
three  catechisms  we  might  also  pause  to  note  another 
fact,  which,  however,  does  not  concern  Ursinus  but  his 
co-laborer,  Olevianus.  There  are  some  things  in  the  Hei- 
delberg that  are  not  in  the  Smaller  Ursinus,  and,  there- 
fore, probably  come  from  Olevianus.  There  have  been 
a  number  of  attempts  to  show  what  part  of  the  Heidel- 
berg belongs  to  Ursinus  and  what  part  to  Olevianus.  But 
they  have  generally  been  mere  guesses.  Thus  we  notice  ""■• 
the  recent  statement  that  Ursinus  gave  the  Latin  body  / 
of  the  catechism,  and  Olevianus  contributed  the  beautiful  ; 
German  style.  There  is  absolutely  no  reason  for  this. 
Olevianus  was  not  a  better  German  scholar  than  Ursinus, 
for  the  latter  was  also  a  German  by  birth.  Indeed  one 
of  the  best  writers  on  the  history  of  the  catechism,  Gillet, 
in  his  "Crato  of  Crafiftheim,"  praises  the  fine  German 
style  of  Ursinus.  On  the  other  hand,  Olevianus  was  also 
a  Latin  scholar  as  well  as  Ursinus,  for  there  are  several 
published  works  by  him  in  Latin,  as  his  Dialectics,  etc. 

But  while  these  guesses  are  without  foundation,  we 
now  come  to  something  in  the  Heidelberg  catechism  that  ^ 
is  probably  contributed  by  Olevianus,  because  it  is  in 
neither  of  the  Ursinus'  catechisms.  This  is  the  section 
in  the  Heidelberg  about  Church  discipline.  For  it  is  to 
be  remembered  that  at  that  time  there  were  parts  of  the 
Church,  which  held  with  Calvin,  that  the  Church  itself 
had  the  right  to  discipline  its  members.  On  the  other 
hand,  there  was  the  view  of  the  Zurich  Church,  that  the 
Church  could  only  admonish  its  members,  but  that  Church 
discipline  belonged  to  the  state.    This  latter  view  has  been 


56  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

called  Erastian  (after  Professor  Erastus  at  Heidelberg), 
especially  as  a  controversy  about  it  broke  out  later  at 
Heidelberg  and  greatly  divided  the  Church.  In  this  con- 
troversy Olevianus  led  the  Calvinists,  and  Erastus  the 
Zurich  party,  and  was  one  of  the  first  to  fall  under  the 
ban  of  Calvinistic  church  discipline  by  being  himself  ex- 
communicated. Now,  what  was  Ursinus'  view  of  church 
discipline.  We  can  easily  see  what  it  was  when  the  Hei- 
delberg was  written,  by  comparing  his  catechisms  with 
the  Heidelberg.  The  Smaller  catechism  has  nothing  on 
church  discipline,  but  the  Larger  has.  In  the  Larger,  at 
the  end,  is  a  section  containing  three  long  answers  on 
church  discipline.  In  this  Ursinus  sympathized  with  the 
Calvinistic  position,  for  in  it  he  gives  the  Church  the 
right  to  admonish  unworthy  members,  though  he  also 
carefully  defines  the  rights  of  the  state.  Like  Calvin,  he 
did  not  hold  to  the  absolute  separation  of  Church  and 
state,  but  to  their  alliance,  and  he  gave  to  each  its  sphere. 
It  is  somewhat  remarkable  that  after  having  come  so 
recently  from  Zurich  he  should  take  the  other  side.  Later, 
when  the  controversy  raged  at  Heidelberg  about  this  Cal- 
vinistic Church  government,  Ursinus  comes  out  squarely 
on  the  Calvinistic  side.  Erastus  then  wrote  to  Bullinger : 
"Ursinus  rages;  he  is  foolish."  The  theses  of  Ursinus 
for  the  Calvinistic  form  of  government  are  given  in  his 
commentary  on  the  catechism  under  answer  85.  The 
Heidelberg  catechism  is  Calvinistic  in  church  govern- 
ment, and  in  the  later  controversy  on  church  discipline 
its  statement  was  used  as  an  argument.  And  because  of 
it  Elector  Frederick  finally  decided  the  controversy  in 
favor  of  Olevianus  and  the  Calvinists. 

There  may  also  be  noted  a  second  thing  in  this  com- 
parison between  the  two  catechisms  of  Ursinus  and  the 
Heidelberg.     Another  statement,  in  regard  to  the  share 


RINGK AS AN 

PENGADJARAN 

AGilMA  ORANG  KRISTEN 

DENGAN 
PENGATOERAN  GREDJA. 

TERSALIN 

OLIH 

R.  AKKERMAN. 


Tertjitak 

olih 

J.  M.  Chs.  NIJLflND 

di 

SOERABAIA. 

Tlie    title-page    of    the    Heidelberg   catechism    in    the    Malay 
language  in  Latin  letters.     See  page  12. 


<J\js^  ^Jb  ^^y/"  (jJ^  (^>^^ 


The    title-page    of    the    Heidelberg   catechism    in    the    Malay 
language    in    Arabic   letters.      See   page    12. 


THE  PREVIOUS  CATECHISMS  57 

of  eacli  author,  has  been  that  Ursinus  gave  the  thought 
and  the  doctrine  to  the  catechism ;  Olevianus  its  devo- 
tional character.  But  there  is  also  no  reason  for  so  bald 
a  statement  as  this.  Olevianus  was  a  theological  thinker 
as  well  as  Ursinus.  For  both  before  and  after  the  pub- 
lication of  the  Heidelberg,  he  was  professor  of  dogmatics, 
before  at  Heidelberg,  after  at  Herborn.  Nor  is  it  true 
that  Ursinus  did  not  reveal  the  devotional  in  his  writings. 
His  earliest  writings,  more  especially  his  inaugural  ad- 
dress at  Breslau  (1558),  are  full  of  religious  earnestness. 
So  are  his  private  letters.  And  this  is  by  no  means  want- 
ing in  his  two  catechisms — the  Larger  and  the  Smaller. 
That  he,  later  in  life,  became  more  scholastic  is  undeni- 
able. His  controversies,  his  continued  ill-health,  his 
natural  inclination  toward  pessimism  all  contributed  to 
this.  But  when  he  wrote  the  Heidelberg  he  was  full  of 
the  warmth  of  youthful  faith.  And  yet,  while  this  is 
true,  this  devotional  experimental  character  is  consider- 
ably stronger  in  the  Heidelberg  than  in  Ursinus'  two 
previous  catechisms.  More  of  the  questions  and  answers 
in  the  Heidelberg  are  in  the  first  and  second  person  \, 
singular.  Perhaps  one  of  the  most  notable  differences  > 
is  in  the  Lord's  Prayer.  For  in  the  Heidelberg  these 
answers  are  in  the  form  of  prayers.  Why?  That  the 
catechumen  might  pray  these  answers  on  his  knees.  The 
catechism  thus  became  a  lilurgy,  an  act  of  worship.  Now  \ 
all  this  would  seem  to  show  that  there  was  a  grain  of 
truth  in  the  thought  that  Olevianus  helped  to  make  the 
catechism  even  more  devotional  than  either  of  Ursinus' 
previous  catechisms  were.  But  it  is  not  true  that  he  gave 
all  that  was  devotional  to  it,  for  Ursinus  also  revealed 
the  devotional,  which  was  never  swallowed  up  by  the 
merely  intellectual 


58  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

(b)    comparison  of  the  HEIDELBERG  WITH  PREVIOUS 
CATECHISMS 

We  have  thus  far  been  using  the  forward  method  in 
our  historical  examination  of  this  subject,  going  from 
the  previous  catechisms  to  the  Heidelberg.  Let  us  re- 
verse this  process  and  go  backward  from  the  Heidelberg 
to  the  catechisms  before  it.  We  have  already  called  at- 
tention to  the  fact  that  the  Heidelberg  was  indebted  to 
the  Strasburg,  Zurich,  Genevan  and  Lasco  catechisms. 
Before  we  take  them  up  let  us  pause  for  a  moment  on  a 
catechism  to  which  attention  has  not  as  yet  been  directed 
— namely,  the  catechism  of  Brenz. 

Brenz  had  been  the  great  reformer  of  southern  Ger- 
many and  had  been  low-Lutheran,  though  late  in  life  he 
became  high-Lutheran.  He  early  published  two  cate- 
chisms— a  Larger  and  a  Smaller,  which  are  mildly 
Lutheran.  It  is  with  the  latter  that  we  have  here  to  do, 
because  it  was  the  official  catechism  of  the  Palatinate 
when  Ursinus  came  there,  having  been  incorporated  in 
the  Church-Order  of  Elector  Otto  Henry  of  1556.  It 
was,  therefore,  used  all  over  the  Palatinate  before  the 
Heidelberg  was  published.  It,  therefore,  must  have  come 
under  the  notice  of  Ursinus.  Indeed,  it  is  a  wonder  that 
when  he  first  began  his  catechetical  lectures  at  Heidel- 
berg soon  after  he  arrived,  be  did  not  use  this  cate- 
chism as  a  basis,  for  it  was  the  official  catechism  of  the 
Church  of  the  Palatinate.  Yet  he  did  not.  Perhaps 
this  was  because  it  was  entirely  too  simple  and  too  brief, 
for  it  consists  of  only  eighteen  answers, — namely  the 
creed,  the  Ten  Commandments  and  the  Lord's  Prayer, — 
with  an  additional  answer  on  the  first  and  two  additional 
answers  at  the  end  of  the  Ten  Commandments.  This  was 
followed  by  two  answers  on  the  Lord's  Supper  and  one 


THE  PREVIOUS  CATECHISMS  59 

on  the  power  of  the  keys.  There  may  also  have  been 
another  reason  why  Ursinus  did  not  use  Brenz'  cate- 
chism. He  had  already  in  his  theological  views  gotten 
far  beyond  Brenz'  catechism.  That  was  Lutheran  and 
agreed  with  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  in  say- 
ing that  "Christ  reaches  out  to  us  his  body  and  blood  with 
the  bread  and  wine."  Ursinus  had  gotten  beyond  that, 
over  to  the  Reformed  position,  as  is  shown  by  his  Larger 
catechism.  The  catechism  of  Brenz  is  peculiar  in  being 
a  sacramental  catechism.  It  is  framed  in  the  sacraments. 
It  begins  and  ends  with  a  sacrament ;  with  the  creed, 
Lord's  Prayer  and  the  decalogue  thrown  in  between.  Ur- 
sinus, therefore,  in  beginning  his  lectures  to  his  students 
in  the  college  of  Wisdom  soon  after  his  arrival,  went  to 
work  to  frame  up  his  own  catechism,  as  Brenz'  cate- 
chism was  unsatisfactory.  And  the  product  of  his  work 
was  his  Larger  catechism. 

And  yet  while  he  did  not  seem  to  use  Brenz'  cate- 
chism in  his  lectures  there  are  several  answers  in  Brenz 
that  remind  us  somewhat  of  the  Heidelberg.  For  it  is 
to  be  remembered  that  Ursinus,  just  at  that  time,  was  on 
the  alert  for  any  catechetical  suggestions  to  help  him  in 
lecturing  to  his  students  in  the  theological  seminary. 
He  not  merely  made  use  of  his  previous  catechetical 
knowledge,  but  from  every  quarter  available  he  was 
gathering  material  to  be  woven  into  his  catechism.  There 
are  especially  two  answers,  the  one  after  the  creed  and  ^ 
the  one  after  the  Ten  Commandments,  that  remind  us 
somewhat  of  the  Heidelberg.  The  answer  after  the  creed 
reads  thus : 

"Of  what  profit  is  this  faith?" 

"That  for  the  sake  of  Jesus  Christ  I  am  counted 
righteous  and  holy  before  God,  and  there  is  given  me  the 
spirit  of  prayer  and  calling  on  God  as  Father,  and  also 
of  ordering  my  life  according  to  God's  commandment." 


6o  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

The  Heidelberg  (59),  at  the  end  of  the  creed,  thus 
reads : 

"But  what  doth  it  profit  thee  that  thou  beHevest  all 
this  That  I  am  righteous  in  Christ  before  God,  and  an 
heir  of  eternal  life?" 

The  first  part  of  this  answer  is  about  the  same  as 
Brenz's.  The  answer  of  Brenz,  after  the  Ten  Command- 
ments, is : 

"For   what   purpose   were   the   Ten   Commandments 


^         given  f* 


"First,  that  we  may  learn  from  them  to  recognise  our 
sins,  and,  secondly,  what  works  are  pleasing  to  God  and 
are  to  he  done  in  order  to  lead  an  honorable  life." 

Listen  to  what  the  Heidelberg  (115)  says  and  see 
the  parallel: 

"Why,  then,  will  God  have  the  Ten  Commandments 
so  strictly  preached,  since  no  man  in  this  life  can  keep 
them  ?'' 

"First,  that  all  our  lifetime  zve  may  learn  more  and 
more  to  know  our  sinful  nature,  likewise  that  we  con- 
stantly endeavor  and  pray  to  God  for  the  grace  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  that  we  may  become  more  and  more  conform- 
able to  the  image  of  God." 

Brenz  then  goes  on  in  the  next  answer  about  good 
works,  which  is  significant : 

"Can  we,  by  our  works,  perfectly  fulfill  God's  com- 
mandment?" 

"No.  H,  therefore,  we  believe  in  Jesus  Christ,  God, 
with  his  gracious  favor,  for  Christ's  sake,  reckons  us 
just  as  though  zve  ourselves  had  fulfilled  all  of  God's 
commands." 

The  Heidelberg,  in  Answer  60,  clearly  states  the  same 
idea: 

"God,  without  any  merit  of  mine,  but  only  of  mere 
grace,  grants  and  imparts  to  me  the  perfect  satisfaction, 
righteousness  and  holiness  of  Christ,  even  so  as  if  I  never 
had  had  nor  committed  any  sin,  yea,  as  if  I  had  fully 


THE  PREVIOUS  CATECHISMS  6i 

accomplished  all  that  obedience  zvhich  Christ  hath  accom- 
plished for  me." 

The  two  catechisms  somewhat  parallel  each  other  on 
"good  works." 

Brenz'  catechism  asks : 

"Why  ought  we  to  do  good  works?" 

Not  that  by  our  works  zve  make  satisfaction  for  sin 
and  merit  life  eternal.  For  Christ  alone  hath  made  satis- 
faction for  our  sins  and  merited  for  us  life  eternal.  But 
we  should  do  good  works  that  by  them  zvc  may  attest  our 
faith  and  render  thanks  to  our  God  for  his  benefits." 

The  Heidelberg  (91)  asks: 

"What  are  good  works?" 

"Only  those  which  proceed  from  a  true  faith,  one 
performed  according  to  the  law  of  God  and  to  His  glory, 
and  not  such  as  are  founded  on  our  imaginations  or  the 
institutions  of  men." 

But  there  is  an  additional  idea  that  the  Heidelberg 
got  from  this  answer  of  Brenz.  We  have  already  seen 
that  Ursinus  probably  received  the  threefold  idea  of  the 
catechism  from  a  theological  treatise  published  at  Heidel- 
berg. But  the  third  part  of  that  catechism  was  named 
good  works.  Ursinus  changed  it  to  thankfulness.  Where 
did  he  get  the  idea  of  good  works  as  thankfulness  ?  We 
know  not.  And  yet  it  is  significant  that  here  in  this 
answer  of  Brenz  it  speaks  of  good  works  as  "thanks 
to  God  for  his  benefits."  Perhaps  Ursinus  got  from 
Brenz  the  idea  of  thankfulness,  which  makes  the  latter 
part  of  our  catechism  so  beautiful,  thus  making  the 
Christian  life  a  thank-ofifering  to  God.* 

But  the  contrast  between  Brenz'  catechism  and  the 
Heidelberg  is  as  interesting  as  the  likeness.     Catechisms 

*  Had  we  time,  we  would  also  like  to  compare  the  Heidel- 
berg with  the  "Articles  on  the  Creed"  by  Peter  Martyr,  who 
was  Ursinus'  favorite  teacher  at  Zurich  before  he  came  to 
Heidelberer. 


62  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

are  of  different  sorts  in  their  contents.  Some  are  chrono- 
logical— that  is,  begin  with  the  creation  and  fall  of  man, 
and  follow  it  historically.  Others  are  cosmological,  mak- 
ing the  decree  of  God  in  relation  to  man  and  the  uni- 
verse, their  keynote.  Others  are  sacramental, — they  begin 
with  baptism.  Brenz  was  of  this  kind.  After  an  intro- 
ductory question  about  religion  it  starts  in  the  second 
answer  by  taking  up  baptism.  The  Heidelberg  is  quite 
different.  It  begins  with  the  idea  of  comfort,  and  is, 
therefore,  experimental. 

And  now,  having  paused  for  a  moment  on  a  Lutheran 
catechism,  let  us  take  up  especially  the  Reformed  cate- 
chisms that  were  the  sources  of  the  Heidelberg.  And 
to  do  this  most  effectively  let  us  take  up  the  peculiarities 
predominant  in  the  Heidelberg  and  trace  them  back. 

The  first  and  one  of  the  greatest  is  the  idea  that  the 
Heidelberg  gives  of  religion  at  its  very  beginning — 
namely,  that  religion  is  a  comfort.  This  is  the  antipodes 
of  the  Catholic  teaching  of  religion,  which  makes  religion 
to  be  fear.  And  so  over  the  doorway  of  every  Catholic 
cathedral  is  carved  in  stone  a  picture  of  the  Last  Judg- 
ment. But  over  the  doorway  of  the  Heidelberg  is  carved 
the  word  "comfort."  It,  more  than  any  other  catechism, 
gives  a  cheerful  aspect  to  religion.  A  true  Reformed 
)can  never  be  a  pessimist — he  must  be  an  optimist.  Ur- 
sinus,  with  his  natural  bent  toward  melancholy,  is  always 
combating  it  with  Christian  optimism.  This  is  beauti- 
fully shown  by  his  letters.  It  is  remarkable  that  one  so 
much  inclined  to  pessimism  has  given  us  what  may  be 
called  the  most  optimistic  of  catechisms.  Ah,  it  was  be- 
cause the  catechism  was  the  expression  of  his  deepest 
spiritual  struggles.  The  Heidelberg  catechism  is  an  ex- 
perimental catechism,  because  Ursinus  and  Olevianus 
wrote  their  own  experience  into  it.    We  are  surprised  that 


II   oj]  (un  htj)  (im  art  (^1  ('*<n  <^  '^^Jl^ 

Q  a  Q.      Q    I        a.        I        a.       o  o 

1.  n  iijtiMMiniuiatiwif;>bii)iHruiriiiji'£jiiLnn3-Jiii](aK3QtiiniiT(iij\iKi_;i  bvi-»> 

a.     .  a   /  o       Q  o 

c>  a  o  a  o .  o  a 

iKm  uKfl  vTi  Ml):   iUTi:Kiirioi  bTinnoJiriJi  kiji  ok  >  icn  in  (KiinniiuKKij]  okhi  nnnin 

Q  ■       a  .       o  /  a     . 

ijiunnnnaoiKunwinjKuiiuLi'jji'Hin'i  iK»itni£iii]in3waiiinMi'L|Ki_S'U  o  K^KifloaniHin 

c 

o  o  o      Q  a  o 

%j[ CT iiasvi  uin  11  axi fwj /^i »J) (ki i    t] ici  ii ki mi:] -ki o m (un  ^.i  tJi _t| iki -n  in ui ^ ' ojii  m 

.1 
_     „  o  a  a  a     .        Q 

trn(j,iii])0  2'ki-rrn,i>  iiKV)  i-"*  ojKininjriv)  Kininji  mtuki  in;  iiro  ifi  jtiki;i  ojntu  \ 

/„  /Q  a  ao  QQ  (?v 

niKTi  uii  in  u)  II  Kti  »u)  o-j) H^n  w  i>m  o»  uti  lui.;  i  <i:ki(ki  wo  toam^Jii  Miia-i  ip; 

I 
no  c^  O  c>  / 

m  ui  i>i  vin  in  i_i  w  .  i  uii .^  in  ii  ui 3  (vi  n  kit  im  ti oi  3  m  mi  ^.in urui  (to >  m inii  li 
J\>i)  J       s  (iL,    mqjxi)        I  MBuS  ^ 

c>/  aci  a       a.  /        Q  a/*  a 

OJII  n  in  (K1  hll  ^1  ^T  >  N  (KT)  K  IJ  (VJI  Kin  Ihin  1A  lirt-l  ;K1  O  KTI  OOn  OJlll  CWaiXI  i,  (Eil  ^ 

o 


o  ci     I    a        Q.         D  o'a.        Q 

(lonn  \  oniiii.iaM  (ki  u;i;tJi  vvMawtiiTajmji  i:i'kJi.ui»ai'm,M  kti  njirjiEn  j  iki  Kin 
*-})  O      \  \      J'^iia  J       J  J^^ 

oifDaKii-nrKhiiiowmjKTnoM'ttnn  Mniui«(i0  3(»Ji-AKniKiMi-At  niuiru  kit  mm  msa 
(bU  nrn  "j  "SU  \      J  d)^ 

Q  .  1>         /       Q  Q  a  %o. 

The  first  question  and  answer  of  the  Heidelberg  catechism 
in  the  Javanese  language.     See  page  12. 


THE  PREVIOUS  CATECHISMS  63 

they  were  able  to  write  so  great  a  catechism  at  so  young 
an  age,  their  ages  being  26  and  28.  We  may  be  glad 
they  wrote  it  then  and  not  later  in  their  lives,  for  it 
would  then  have  been  more  didactic  and  cold,  like  the 
Westminster  catechism.  But  written  in  their  youth,  it 
is  full  of  youthful  aspirations  and  buoyant  earnestness. 
Neither  could  they  have  written  a  catechism  of  such  a 
spirit  later  in  their  lives.  It  is  the  catechism  of  youth, 
and  that  is  what  gives  it  eternal  youth. 

Well  how  does  this  prominence  of  comfort  in  religion 
get  into  the  Heidelberg?  It  is  very  interesting  to  trace  it 
back.  There  is  a  hint  of  it  away  back  in  Leo  Juda's 
Shorter  catechism  (answer  73),  where  religion  is  de- 
scribed as  a  joy.  But  the  idea  of  comfort  does  not  come 
out  prominently  until  in  the  Lasco  group  of  catechisms. 

In  the  first  catechism  of  that  group,  the  Lasco  cate- 
chism (1546),  which,  as  a  manuscript,  was  first  used 
among  the  Reformed  Churches  of  East  Friesland  in  Ger- 
many and  later  published  in  1551  in  London,  this  idea 
begins  to  appear.  In  its  answer  125,  referring  to  the 
Lord's  Prayer,  the  question  asks  what  comfort  does  the 
word  "Father"  have  in  it?  The  answer  replies:  "A 
very  special  comfort  in  life  and  death."  Here  you  have 
exactly  the  wording  of  the  first  question  of  the  Heidel- 
berg. Again  in  that  catechism,  question  127  asks  what 
comfort  does  it  bring  us  that  God  is  Almighty? 

Another  catechism  of  this  group  was  published  in 
London  in  1553  for  the  refugee  church  there,  of  which 
Lasco  was  the  pastor.  They  had  had  a  catechism  of 
their  own,  made  by  Micronius,  Lasco's  assistant.  The 
Micronius'  catechism  was  an  abbreviation  of  Lasco's  cate- 
chism, but  they  needed  a  still  shorter  catechism,  intended 
especially  for  those  about  to  join  Church.  So  this  Shorter 
London   catechism  was  published.      In   it,   question  23, 


64  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

referring  to  the  articles  of  the  creed  (the  communion  of 
saints,  forgiveness  of  sins,  resurrection  of  the  body  and 
eternal  life),  asks:  What  comfort  is  given  by  these? 
And  the  answer  then  proceeds  to  give  three  comforts 
derived  from  them.  This  idea  of  comfort  is  repeated  in 
Question  34,  where,  referring  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  it 
asks  :    What  comfort  have  you  in  it  ? 

The  Emden  catechism  was  the  fourth  of  this  group  of 
Lasco's  catechisms,  published  in  1554  by  the  pastors  of 
the  city  of  Emden,  in  Germany,  where  Lasco  had,  eight 
years  before,  introduced  his  first  catechism,  then  in 
manuscript  (of  which  we  spoke  above).  This  Emden 
catechism  is  the  last  of  the  Lasco  group  of  catechisms, 
and  is  based  on  the  three  others.  In  its  24th  question  the 
idea  of  comfort  appears  as  it  asks :  Where  shall  this 
poor  man,  condemned  man,  made  fearful  by  the  law. 
seek  comfort?  The  reply  is  "Not  in  himself,  but  in 
Christ."  Indeed  this  answer  is  somewhat  like  the  be- 
ginning of  our  first  answer  so  that  we  will  give  it  in  full : 

"Not  in  himself,  or  in  any  other  zvork  in  heaven  or 
earth,  hut  alone  through  faith  in  the  only  mediator  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  who  has  revealed  to  us  the  doctrine 
of  the  Holy  Gospel,  by  which  God  urges  and  impels  us  by 
that  law  as  by  a  schoolmaster." 

These  answers  of  these  dififerent  catechisms  reveal 
that  the  idea  of  religion,  as  a  comfort,  was  becoming 
more  prominent  just  before  Ursinus  wrote  his  catechisms. 
And  this  idea  Ursinus  seized  upon  for  the  beginning  of 
our  catechism.  These  refugees  of  Lasco's  Church  had 
been  driven  out  of  England  by  the  persecution  under 
bloody  Queen  Mary.  They  had  fled  to  Denmark  and 
then  to  north  Germany  for  a  refuge.  But  the  high- 
Lutherans  of  those  regions  had  driven  them  away.  They 
at  last,  for  a  few  years,  found  a  resting-place  at  Frank- 


THE  PREVIOUS  CATECHISMS  65 

ford.  But  the  Lutherans  soon  drove  them  away  from 
there.  Then  it  was  that  Elector  Frederick  III,  of  the 
Palatinate,  gave  them  an  asylum,  and  they  settled  at 
Frankenthal,  not  far  from  Heidelberg,  in  the  spring  of 
1562,  forming  a  large  congregation.*  It  was  this  congre- 
gation that  brought  with  them  from  London  these  Lasco 
catechisms.  And  so  Ursinus  and  Olevianus  came  into 
contact  with  them  and  utilized  them  in  writing  the  Hei- 
delberg. This  idea  of  comfort  appears  in  Ursinus'  first 
and  Larger  catechism,  which  begins  thus  (and  you  can 
now  see  how  our  beautiful  first  answer  grew)  : 

"What  firm  comfort  do  you  have  in  life  and  death?" 
"That  I  am  formed  of  God  according  to  his  image." 
Ursinus  then  goes  on  to  base  this  comfort  on  the 
covenant  of  God  as  he  continues : 

"And  after  I  had  lost  this  image  willingly  in  Adam, 
God,  out  of  his  infinite  and  free  mercy,  received  me  into 
the  covenant  of  his  grace,  in  order  that  he,  on  account 
of  the  obedience  and  death  of  his  Son,  sent  unto  us  in 
the  flesh,  may  give  to  me.  a  believer,  justice  and  eternal 
life;  and  this  covenant  he  had  sealed  in  my  heart  through 
his  spirit,  re-forming  me  in  accordance  with  the  image  of 
God  and  calling  me  'Abba  Father,'  through  his  Word 
and  the  visible  sign  of  the  covenant." 

Let  us  follow  this  first  answer  of  our  catechism  one 
step  farther  to  the  second  or  Smaller  catechism  of  Ur- 
sinus. There  we  see  it  is  exactly  like  the  first  part  of 
our  answer  though  briefer: 

"What  is  your  comfort  by  which  in  life  and  death 
your  heart  sustains  itself?" 

"That  God,  for  Christ's  sake,  has  truly  forgiven  my 
sins  and  given  me  eternal  life,  that  in  it  I  may  glorify 

*  The  story  of  the  sufferings  of  these  Reformed  refugees 
had  long  stirred  the  heart  of  Ursinus.  Even  in  his  university- 
days  at  Wittenberg  he  refers  to  them  in  his  letters,  as  he  also 
does  in  his  Inaugural  Address,  at  Breslau,  1558. 


66  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

him  forever." 

The  ending  of  this  is  like  the  ending  of  our  sixth 
answer.  Then  our  Heidelberg  catechism  completes  these 
two  answers  of  Ursinus'  catechisms  by  agreeing  with  the 
Smaller  catechism  in  accepting  the  idea  of  comfort  rather 
than  that  of  covenant  in  the  Larger.  But  it  adds  to  the 
answer  in  the  Smaller  the  reasons  for  our  comfort,  four 
in  number — first,  redemption  ("that  Christ  has  fully  sat- 
isfied for  all  my  sins")  ;  second,  deliverance  ("and  de- 
livered me  from  the  power  of  the  devil")  ;  third,  preserva- 
tion ("so  preserves  me  that  not  a  hair  can  fall  from  my 
head")  ;  fourth,  assurance  ("he  also  assures  me  of  eternal 
life"). 

It  was  Ursinus  who  seized  on  this  idea  of  religion  as 
a  comfort  before  Olevianus  became  his  helper  in  pre- 
paring the  catechism,  for  he  uses  this  idea  in  his  Smaller 
catechism.  It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  Ursinus,  four 
years  before  he  aided  in  the  composition  of  the  Hei- 
delberg, refers  to  this  idea  in  his  Inaugural  Address  at 
the  school  at  Breslau.  He  there  says :  "Let  us  rather, 
with  all  submission  and  thankfulness,  embrace  this  sweet- 
est comfort  by  which  we  are  assured  that  our  labors  please 
God."  He  also,  in  that  address,  speaks  of  the  three  tests 
of  the  Christian  and  calls  the  third  "this  comfort  that,  for 
the  differences  and  inequalities  of  gifts  and  degrees,  we 
shall  not  be  cast  off  and  suffered  to  perish,  which  comfort 
must  be  opposed  to  the  grief  conceived  upon  our  own 
unworthiness." 

In  a  number  of  other  answers  the  influence  of  these 
Lasco  catechisms  is  evident,  but  time  fails  to  note  them, 
except  to  call  attention  to  the  influence  of  the  catechism 
by  Lasco,  on  the  form  of  the  answers  in  the  Heidelberg 
on  the  Lord's  Prayer  (122-129).  In  them  there  are  occa- 
sional sentences  taken  from  Lasco's,  but  the  similarity 


THE  PREVIOUS  CATECHISMS  67 

does  not  lie  in  the  words,  but  in  the  form.  The  form  of 
them  is  that  each  answer  is  a  prayer.  This  is  a  beautiful 
idea.  The  catechism  not  merely  teaches  us  what  prayer 
is,  but  it  makes  us  pray.  These  answers  on  prayer,  when 
taken  singly  or  together,  make  a  beautiful  prayer.  It 
is  well,  when  studying  them,  to  get  the  catechetical  class 
to  pray  them  together  in  concert.  For  they  are  the 
Heidelberg  version  of  the  Lord's  Prayer.  They  remind 
us  of  Elector  Frederick  Ill's  version  of  the  Lord's  Prayer, 
to  which  we  shall  refer  in  the  chapter  on  "How  Elector 
Frederick  III  Became  Reformed." 

And  as  we  have  watched  the  influence  of  the  Lasco 
group  of  catechisms,  to  which  about  twenty  of  the  answers 
or  about  one-sixth  of  our  catechism  refer,  so  too  we 
might  also  watch  the  influence  of  the  other  catechisms. 
Next  to  the  Lasco  catechisms  come  the  Zurich  group  of 
catechisms,  especially  Leo  Juda's  Smaller  catechism. 
Their  influence  is  shown  in  14  answers;  as  Juda,  in  21, 
25,  27,  45,  56,  60,  86,  91,  117,  127,  and  Bullinger,  in  80, 
91,  102.  After  the  Zurich  catechisms  comes  Calvin's  cate- 
chism, with  twelve  of  the  answers  of  the  Heidelberg  re- 
ferring to  it,  as  30,  31,  32,  45,  46,  47,  48,  49,  88,  108, 
109  and  no.  And  some  of  the  answers  have  also  a  like- 
ness to  Calvin's  Institutes,  as  26-28.  The  Strasburg  cate- 
chisms of  Bucer  and  Zell  reveal  themselves  in  seven 
answers ;  Bucer  in  27,  104,  106,  129,  and  Zell  in  2,  52,  94, 
120,  128.  Some  almost  unknown  catechisms  reveal  their 
influence,  especially  a  Bavarian  catechism  by  Meckhart 
(1553),  to  which  five  answers  refer.  Indeed,  one  of  the 
answers  of  the  Heidelberg,  the  26th  on  Providence,  to- 
gether with  three  of  Ursinus'  Smaller  catechism  (39.  40, 
41)  go  back  to  what  may  be  called  the  earliest  of  the 
Protestant  catechisms, — Bader's  Dialogue-book  of  1526. 
We  give  it  here  and  then  give  answer  26.     Bader  says: 


68  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

The  first  article  of  the  creed  has  the  meaning  "that  I 
beHeve  and  am  certain  in  my  heart  that  the  only  eternal 
and  Almighty  God,  who  has  created  heaven  and  earth, 
is  my  friendly,  propitious  and  beloved  father,  and  /  am 
his  chosen  child,  beloved  as  his  own  heart."  Our  answer 
26  reads :  "That  the  eternal  father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  (who,  of  nothing  made  heaven  and  earth,  who 
likewise  upholds  and  governs  the  same  by  his  eternal 
counsel  and  providence)  is,  for  the  sake  of  God,  his  Son, 
m,y  God  and  my  Father."  We  shall  also,  in  the  next 
chapter,  refer  to  another  hitherto  unknown  source  of  our 
catechism.  But  time  fails  to  dwell  any  longer  on  these 
details.  We  refer  the  reader  to  the  works  of  Gooszen 
and  Lang  on  the  Heidelberg  catechism  for  fuller  details. 

^  3.     Topical. — Let   us,   before   closing,   turn   to    indi- 

vidual answers  in  the  Heidelberg  and  see  them  grow. 
Let  us  begin  at  the  beginning  of  our  catechism  and  take 
up  some  of  its  prominent  answers. 

The  first  question  and  answer  is  always  interesting, 
where  did  it  come  from  ?  We  have  already  noticed  in  this 
chapter  where  the  idea  of  comfort  in  the  question  came 
from.  Concerning  the  answer,  perhaps  the  best  descrip- 
tion of  it  is  that  the  first  and  last  part  came  from  the 
Lasco  group  of  catechisms  and  the  middle  part  was  filled 
out  by  the  authors  of  the  catechism.  And  yet  the  analysis 
may  be  better  made  than  that.  That  answer  consists  of 
a  proposition :  "that  I  am  not  my  own,  but  belong  to 
Christ."  This  is  followed  by  four  reasons  to  prove  it, 
satisfaction,  deliverance,  preservation  and  assurance.  The 
first  of  the  reasons  (the  satisfaction  of  Christ)  is  taken 
from  the  first  answer  of  the  London,  which  says :  "zvho 
hath  cleansed  me  and  the  holy  offering  of  His  body  and 
the  shedding  of  His  blood  for  my  sins,"  and  from  the 


THE  PREVIOUS  CATECHISMS  69 

second  answer  of  the  Emden  catechism :  "that  I  am  again 
saved  from  sin  and  death  by  the  satisfaction  of  Christ 
Jesus."  The  last  reason  (assurance),  is  from  the  London 
catechism,  answer  i,  and  the  Emden,  answer  3,  both  of 
which  speak  of  the  Holy  Ghost  making  us  willing  to 
serve  him.  We  give  here  the  answer  of  the  London, 
answer  3 : 

"How  are  you  assured  that  you  are  a  true  Christian?" 

"First,  by  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who,  by 
faith  in  my  high  priest  Jesus  Christ,  testifies  to  my  Spirit, 
that  I  am  a  child  of  God,  and,  secondly,  by  the  inelina- 
tion  and  desire  to  serve  God,  zuhich,  by  the  Spirit  of  God, 
I  feel  in  the  imvard  man." 

The  question  has  been  asked,  where  does  the  very 
first  idea  of  the  first  answer  come  from,  "that  I  am  not 
my  own,  but  belong  to  my  faithful  Saviour."  It  is  un- 
doubtedly Biblical,  but  seems  not  to  have  been  used  much 
in  the  catechisms.  Prof.  Lang  calls  attention  to  its  use 
in  a  Bavarian  catechism  of  Huber,  of  1543,  which  speaks 
of  "Christ  my  Saviour  and  head,  and  I  his  member  and 
property."  out  of  which  originally  this  answer  in  our 
catechism  after  twenty  years  may  be  said  to  have  grown. 
But  while  a  number  of  the  ideas  of  this  answer  existed 
in  other  catechisms,  yet  with  what  remarkable  genius  did 
the  authors  of  our  catechism  put  them  together  and  fill 
in  between  them  the  missing  parts  until  the  whole  answer 
becomes  a  beautiful,  complete  whole. 

Another  answer  that  has  always  been  prominent  and 
dear  to  readers  of  the  Heidelberg  has  been  the  answer 
about  faith,  the  21st. 

"True  faith  is  not  only  a  certain  knowledge,  whereby  I 
hold  for  truth  all  that  God  has  revealed  in  his  Word, 
but  also  an  assured  confidence,  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
works  by  the  gospel  in  my  heart,  that  not  only  to  others, 
but  to  me  also,  remission  of  sin,  everlasting  righteous  and 
salvation  are  freely  given,  merely  of  grace,  only  for  the 


70  ,  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

sake  of  Christ's  merits." 

Following  this  backward,  in  Ursinus'  Smaller  cate- 
chism, it  reads : 

"Faith  is  a  strong  assent,  by  which  we  accept  all  that 
is  revealed  to  us  in  the  Word  of  God ;  and  a  sure  confi- 
dence created  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  hearts  of  God's 
elect,  whereby  each  one  feels  assured  that,  through  the 
merits  of  Christ  alone,  remission  of  sins,  righteousness 
and  eternal  life  are  freely  given  by  God,  only  for  the 
merits  of  Christ." 

Going  still  further  back  to  Ursinus'  Larger  catechism, 
it  there  reads : 

"Faith  is  a  firm  assent  to  every  Word  of  God,  and 
a  firm  confidence,  by  which  every  one  holds  that  forgive- 
ness of  sin,  righteousness  and  eternal  life  are  given  him 
by  God,  freely,  on  account  of  the  merits  of  Christ;  and 
through  confidence  is  an  illumination  in  the  hearts  of 
the  elect  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  making  us  living  members 
of  Christ  and  producing  in  us  true  love  of  God  and 
prayer." 

All  these  answers  are  very  much  alike,  but  when  we 
go  beyond  the  catechisms  of  Ursinus,  where  does  Answer 
21  come  from?  Away  back  in  Leo  Juda's  catechism  of 
1534,  the  germ  of  it  appears  where  he  says:  "Faith  is  a 
knowledge  of  God  and  a  confidence  and  a  gift  of  God." 
In  his  next  catechism,  of  1538,  he  says:  "Faith  is  a  cer- 
tain trust  and  firm  confidence  in  the  true  living  God." 
Calvin  (1541)  speaks  of  faith  as  "a  sure  knowledge  and 
sure  confidence."  We  will,  in  the  next  chapter,  show 
that  this  idea  first  came  to  Ursinus  when  he  studied  the 
catechism  of  his  boyhood  by  Moibanus.  As  he  later 
studied  these  other  catechisms  and  found  this  idea  en- 
forced again  and  again,  he  put  it  in  our  catechism  as  the 
basis  of  this  21st  answer.  In  fact,  he  found  a  good  deal 
of  his  answer  in  Micronius'  catechism  (1552),  answer  44. 

"Faith  is  a  fixed  and  firm  confidence  in  God,  awakened 


C  ATECHISMO, 

Qucfignifica, 
FORMA  DE  INSTRUCA5, 

que  fe  enfina  em  as 

ESCHOLAS  E  IGREJAS 
REFO  RM ADAS 

Conforme  «  Palavra  de  Decs ,  pofto  por  Perguuttn 

e  Repoftas  lobre  os  pnncipios  da  doutrim 

Chril^aa. 


t'A  M  S  T  E  R  D  A  M,    "<::3^>.^ 

Voor  Corneltf  7««/f ,  BoeckverkoOpCT  >  360  de 
KiciweKercki  inCaiviaus>  i  £  6  > 


The  title-page  of  the  Heidelberg  catechism  in  the  Portuguese 
language  (first  edition.)      See  pages  12-18. 


C-ATECHISMO, 

Qiic  fignificii, 

FORMA  DE  INSTRUCAO, 

que  fe  enfina  em  as 

ESCHOLAS   E   IGREJAS 
R  E  F  O  R  M  A  D  A  S 

Conforme  a  Palavra  dc  Dcos  ,   poflo  por 
Perguncas  e  Rcpoftasfobrcosprincipios 

da  doucrina  Chriftaa.       >'??a£--^ 


Por  ordimdos  S".  Direitores  lia  Qirnp^-mja  Oritntjl  , 
Em     AMSTERDAM, 

EmcafadosErdcirosdePauIusMauhyi^.,  1689. 


The  title-page  of  the  Heidelberg  catechism  in  the  Portuguese 
language  (second  edition).     See  pages  12-18. 


THE  PREVIOUS  CATECHISMS  71 

in  our  hearts  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  he  is  our  gracious 
Father,  only  by  the  will  of  Jesus  Christ  his  son." 

And  there  is  a  phrase  in  our  answer,  "not  only 
to  others,  but  to  me  also,"  that  Prof.  Lang  finds  in 
Melancthon. 

Let  us  take  another  prominent  subject,  the  answers 
on  providence  (26-28).  In  answer  26,  the  phrase  "the 
eternal  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  of  nothing 
made  heaven  and  earth,  who  likewise  uphold  and  governs 
the  same,"  goes  away  back  to  Leo  Juda's  first  catechism 
(1534).  The  latter  part  of  that  answer,  which  says: 
"he  is  able  to  do  it,  being  Almighty  God,  and  willing, 
being  a  faithful  Father,"  harks  back  to  the  London  cate- 
chism (12),  where  it  says: 

"I  place  all  my  confidence  in  the  eternal  God,  assured 
that  he  will  stand  by  me  in  all  the  need  of  my  soul  and 
body,  for  he  is  an  Almighty  God,  and  to  me  a  luilling 
Father." 

The  catechism  of  Micronius  (48)  is  very  much  like 
this: 

"/  believe  that  the  eternal  God  is  my  God  and  Father, 
ivho  is  the  creator,  upholder  and  ruler  of  heaven  and 
earth,  and  all  that  in  them  is.  In  whom  alone  I  put 
my  confidence,  assured  that  he  is  able  to  help  me,  and 
also  zvill,  seeing  that  he  is  Almighty,  and  thereto  my 
Father." 

The  authors  of  our  catechism  had  simply  to  enlarge 
these  thoughts  in  order  to  produce  the  26th  answer  of 
our  catechism.  But  when  we  come  to  the  27th,  we  are 
somewhat  surprised  to  find  that  the  concrete  part  of  that 
answer,  "so  that  herbs  and  grass,  rain  and  drought,  fruit- 
ful and  barren  years,  meat  and  drink,  health  and  sickness, 
riches  and  poverty,  yea,  all  things  come  not  by  chance, 
but  by  His  fatherly  hand,"  is  taken  from  Calvin's  cate- 
chism. Answer  27,  which  says : 


\ 


72        THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

"It  is  he  that  sendeth  rain  and  drought,  hail,  tempest 
and  fair  zueather,  fertility  and  barrenness,  dearth  and 
plenty,  health  and  sickness,  and  to  be  short,  he  hath  all 
things  at  commandment  to  do  him  service  at  his  own 
good  pleasure." 

Prof.  Lang  thinks  that  these  three  answers,  26,  27  and 
28,  remind  one  of  what  Calvin  says  in  the  first  edition 
of  his  Institutes  (1536),  volume  i,  page  63. 

Answer  31,  "Why  is  He  called  Christ,  that  is 
anointed?"  where  Christ  is  spoken  of  as  our  prophet, 
priest  and  king,  goes  away  back  to  Leo  Juda  (1534),  who 
speaks  of  Him  as  king  and  priest.  Then  Calvin  adds  the 
office  of  prophet,  in  which  he  is  followed  by  Bullinger  in 
his  Latin  catechism.  These  Ursinus  enlarged  in  his 
Larger  catechism  into  five  answers  and  they  are  almost 
like  our  catechism.  His  Smaller  catechism  unites  these 
different  answers  into  one,  which  is  almost  verbally  copied 
in  our  catechism.  Our  catechism  always  inclining,  as  it 
does,  to  emphasize  the  personal,  adds  to  this  answer  of  the 
Smaller,  the  beautiful  32d  answer,  "Why  art  thou  called 
a  Christian?"  which  seems  to  be  original.  Prof.  Lang, 
it  is  true,  says  that  in  answer  32  he  finds  a  source  in 
answer  64  of  Ursinus'  Larger  catechism,  but  it  is  only 
in  one  clause,  "reigning  with  Him  eternally."  He  also 
quotes  Calvin's  answer  22  as  a  source,  but  we  see  no 
likeness.  This  answer,  however,  is  interesting  in  its 
balancing  of  the  passive  and  active  life  of  the  Chris- 
tian. It  emphasizes  the  strenuous  life  when  it  says  :  "That 
so  I  may  confess  His  name, — I  may  fight  against  sin  and 
Satan  in  this  life."  This  sounds  like  Olevianus,  who  had 
just  done  this  at  Treves  before  he  wrote  our  catechism, 
as  we  shall  describe  in  a  later  chapter.  And  yet  this  de- 
mand for  the  strenuous  life  is  balanced  by  the  emphasis 
on  the  self-denying  life  as  it  says:  "a  living  sacrifice"; 


P    5 


1  OiN  pi 


Q     Q 


LjO^sjS^  Ssd&jScssc;!^  SS- 


The  title-page  of  the  Heidelberg  catechism  in  the  Singalese 
language.  The  Coat  of  Arms  of  the  Dutch  East  India  Company 
is  in  the  center.     See  page  13. 


THE  PREVIOUS  CATECHISMS  73 

and  he  connects  this  with  one  of  his  main  ideas  in  the 
catechism  by  adding  ''of  thankfulness  to  Him."  The 
previous  lives  of  both  the  writers  of  the  catechism,  with 
their  struggles,  disappointments  and  persecutions,  are 
written  into  our  catechism  and  find  expression  in  this 
answer. 

Our  answer  54,  on  "what  is  the  Church,"  has  an  in- 
teresting history.  The  first  Protestant  definition  of  the 
Church  was  given  by  Bucer  and  Calvin,  "a  congregation 
elect  to  eternal  life."  Leo  Juda's  gave  it  as  "a  gathering 
of  believers  elect  to  eternal  life."  This  gives  us  only  the 
first  part  of  our  answer,  which  says : 

''That  the  Son  of  God,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end 
of  the  world,  gathers,  defends  and  preserves  to  Himself 
out  of  the  whole  human  race  a  Church  elect  to  ever- 
lasting life  agreeing  in  true  faith." 

But  the  beautiful  ending  of  our  answer,  "and  that  I 
am  and  forever  shall  remain  a  living  member  thereof." 
Where  does  it  come  from  ?  It  has  remained  for  the  Lasco 
catechisms,  so  full  of  devotion,  to  put  it  in  the  London 
(21)  and  Micronius  (67).  Both  add  to  the  answer  about 
the  Church  the  clause,  "of  which  I  know  myself  to  be  a 
member." 

The  Emden  is  virtually  the  same  as  our  catechism : 

"I  believe  that  my  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  out  of  this  lost 
world  by  the  Holy  Spirit  and  by  the  voice  of  the  Holy 
Gospel,  has,  from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  gathered 
and  preserved  an  eternal,  holy,  continuing  Church  or 
congregation  of  the  elect,  of  which  congregation  I  recog- 
nize myself  as  a  member." 

During  the  liturgical  controversy  in  our  Church 
nearly  fifty  years  ago,  a  sharp  controversy  arose  between 
the  high-churchmen  and  the  low-churchmen,  as  to  the 
exact  meaning  of  the  word  "Church"  in  our  catechism. 
Rev.  Prof  H.  Rust,  for  the  low-churchmen  claimed  it 


74 


THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 


meant  "congregation ;"  Rev.  Prof.  E.  V.  Gerhart  denied 
this  and  claimed  that  it  meant  more  than  the  congregation, 
for  he  emphasized  the  priesthood  of  the  ministry.  Rust 
declared  that  the  German  word  used  in  answer  74  for 
church,  is  "congregation"  (gemeinde)  ;  and  also  that 
answer  54  defines  the  church  as  a  "congregation" 
(gemeinde).  The  literary  sources  of  our  catechism 
prove  that  the  low-churchmen  were  right  in  their  conten- 
tion. For  the  Lasco  catechisms,  which  were  the  main 
source  of  that  answer,  all  use  "congregation"  or  "as- 
sembly." 

When  we  come  to  the  sacraments  we  come  to  a  very 
interesting  history.  Our  catechism  defines  the  sacraments 
as  "holy,  visible  signs  and  seals."  Where  does  that 
definition  come  from?  The  Catholic  doctrine  had  been 
that  they  were  saving  ordinances,  the  Protestant,  that 
they  were  sealing  ordinances.  How  did  the  Reformed 
formulate  their  new  doctrine  that  they  were  sealing, 
rather  than  saving?  Here  a  very  interesting  history  ap- 
pears in  connection  with  the  catechisms.  Leo  Juda,  in  his 
first  catechism,  speaks  of  the  sacraments  as  oaths,  thus 
referring  to  the  communicant  rather  than  defining  the 
sacrament  itself.  In  his  second,  he  speaks  of  them  as 
signs,  or  as  signs  of  duty  (pflichtzeichen)  or  oaths  or 
covenant-signs.  This  idea  of  them  as  signs  comes  over 
from  the  Catholic  definition  of  them  "as  visible  signs  of 
invisible  grace."  We  have  thus  seen  that  they  were 
defined  by  the  first  Protestants  as  signs.  This  was  es- 
pecially the  Zwinglian  idea,  which  was  severely  attacked 
by  Luther.  When  did  the  idea  of  them  as  seals  appear? 
The  Lutherans,  according  to  Luther's  Smaller  catechism, 
defined  the  Lord's  Supper  thus:  "The  Lord's  Supper 
is  the  true  body  and  blood  of  Christ."  They  did  not  let 
anything  figurative,  like  the  sign  and  the  seal,  come  in  to 


THE  PREVIOUS  CATECHISMS  75 

lower,  as  it  seemed  to  them,  the  idea  of  the  reality  of  the 
presence  of  Christ's  body.  This  idea  of  seal  does  not 
become  prominent  until  the  Lasco  catechisms.  It  first  ap- 
pears in  Lasco's  catechism  and  is  followed  by  the  Mi- 
cronius  and  the  Emden.  In  fact,  all  these  put  the  phrase 
"signs  and  seals"  together,  when  even  Calvin  had  not 
done  it  in  his  catechism.  Our  Answer  66  is  very  much 
like  the  54th  of  the  Emden  catechism.  It,  however,  omits 
an  important  element  in  the  Emden,  the  social  and  ethical 
significance  of  the  sacrament.  But  the  Heidelberg  em- 
phasizes an  idea,  not  so  prominent  in  the  Emden — namely, 
the  memorial  idea  of  the  sacraments,  both  as  to  baptism 
as  well  as  the  Lord's  Supper.  Indeed,  the  Heidelberg 
adds  a  whole  new  answer,  the  67th,  which  refers  the 
whole  of  our  salvation  to  the  one  sacrifice  of  Christ.  This 
answer,  like  the  32d,  of  which  we  have  spoken,  seems  to 
be  entirely  new — that  is,  is  not  in  either  of  Ursinus'  pre- 
vious catechisms.  It  is  evident  that  the  authors  of  the 
catechism  wanted  to  emphasize  the  memorial  character  of 
the  sacraments,  or  they  would  not  have  put  it  in  the  cate- 
chism. Indeed,  its  importance  is  shown  by  its  being 
placed  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  sacraments.  This 
memorial  idea  is,  however,  later  balanced  by  Calvin's 
ideas  (baptism  as  a  sign  of  the  covenant  (74),  and  the 
spiritual  presence  of  Christ  at  the  Lord's  Supper  (76).) 

We  might  go  on  thus  and  trace  other  answers  in  our 
catechism  back  to  the  earlier  catechisms,  but  it  is  not 
necessary.  It  is  very  evident,  from  what  has  already  been 
given,  that  the  authors  of  our  catechisms  made  use  of 
earlier  catechisms  to  a  very  considerable  extent. 

But  before  leaving  this,  we  will  refer  to  four  places  in 
our  catechism  which  are  somewhat  peculiar  in  meaning. 

The  first  is  the  section  from  answers  12  to  18,  which 
has  sometimes  been  called  the  scholastic  part  of  our  cate- 


76  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

chism,  and  some  have,  therefore,  objected  to  it.  It  cer- 
tainly proceeds  with  the  severest  dialectic  to  show  that, 
as  we  could  not  save  ourselves  and  no  creature  could  save 
us,  it  was  necessary  for  a  divine-human  Christ  to  do  so. 
This  section  is  not  in  either  of  the  previous  catechisms 
of  Ursinus,  though  some  of  the  individual  answers  refer 
to  some  of  their  answers  scattered  here  and  there.  We 
have  to  leap  over  these  and  go  away  back  to  Leo  Juda's 
first  catechism,  and  there  is  the  whole  plan  wrought  out 
in  all  these  steps  many  years  before. 

The  second  is  in  the  37th  answer,  "Christ  sustained  the 
wrath  of  God  against  the  sins  of  all  mankind."  This  has 
been  a  battleground.  The  infralapsarians  claim  it  taught 
that  Christ  died  only  for  the  elect ;  the  sublapsarians  that 
he  died  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world.  Do  the  sources 
give  any  light  ?  It,  doubtless,  was  an  echo  of  Ursinus' 
Larger  catechism  (86),  which  says  "as  if  he  alone  had 
committed  all  the  sins  of  all  men."  Professor  Lang  says 
the  latter  view  does  not  contradict  Calvin's  doctrine,  as 
stated  in  the  Geneva  Consensus.  We  have  not  been  able 
to  find  the  expression  in  any  of  the  catechisms,  but  sus- 
pect it  comes  either  from  Lasco  or  Bullinger,  both  of 
whom  held  to  the  universal  atonement.  Ursinus'  ex- 
planation of  this  answer  is  infralapsarian,  but  those  of 
us  who  are  sublapsarian  and  hold  to  the  universal  atone- 
ment are  glad  this  last  phrase  got  into  the  catechism. 

The  third  is,  where  does  answer  44,  which  gives 
the  figurative  explanation  of  Christ's  descent  into  hell, 
referring  it  to  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  come  from.  This 
our  catechism  got  from  Calvin,  who  so  explains  it.  But 
Leo  Juda,  in  his  earlier  catechisms,  refers  it  to  a  place — 
namely,  his  going  among  the  dead,  as  did  Bucer  and 
Zell.  The  figurative  explanation  of  our  catechism  is  true 
as  far  as  it  goes,  but  it  is  not  the  historical  one. 


THE  PREVIOUS  CATECHISMS 


77 


Then,  lastly,  let  us  look  at  the  8oth  answer  against  the 
Romish  mass.  This  answer  can  lay  claim  to  originality, 
for  it  was  placed  in  the  catechism,  as  we  know,  after  it 
was  first  published.  The  earlier  catechisms  stated  the 
positive  side  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  rather  than  the 
polemical.  And  yet  our  Heidelberg  is  not  alone  in  de- 
nouncing the  mass.  The  catechism  of  Bullinger  speaks 
against  the  mass,  because  it  is  a  sacrifice.  It  devotes  two 
answers  to  it.  There  is  also  an  answer  in  Calvin's  cate- 
chism against  the  mass  as  an  offering  for  sin.*  So  that 
the  Heidelberg  has  company  in  its  denunciation  of  the 
mass,  as  it  had  good  reason  to  put  it  in  just  then,  be- 
cause of  the  severe  denunciations  of  Protestants  by  the 
Council  of  Trent. 

C.       CONCLUSION 

From  this  study  of  our  catechism  it  is  evident  that 
our  catechism  was  not,  by  any  means,  an  original  com- 
position. Rather,  it  was  a  summary  of  the  catechetical 
literature  of  the  previous  thirty  years.  It  was  the  rich, 
ripe  fruit  of  the  catechetical  effort  of  the  Church  for  a 
quarter  of  a  century.  And  it  is  this  that  gives  it  its  pe- 
culiar power.  It  was  a  finished  product  of  the  ferveut  / 
devotional  spirit  of  an  age  of  such  fresh  religious  spirit  " 
as  the  reformation,  before  it  degenerated  into  formalism 
and  dry  dogma.  This  accounts  for  the  devotional  ex- 
perimental character  of  the  Heidelberg.  It  was  developed 
out  of  a  period  when  the  warmth  of  the  Holy  Spirit's 
power  was  still  filling  the  hearts  of  the  people. 

But  while  all  this  is  all  true,  it  does  not  lower  the 
merit  of  the  authors  of  the  catechism,  Ursinus  and  Ole- 

*  Melancthon,  in  his  "Considerations  of  Ordinances,"  which 
Ursinus  had  used  at  Breslau,  speaks  of  the  mass  as  an  idolatry, 
as  he  does  also  in  his  dogmatics. 


78  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

vianus.  Rather  it  should  enhance  our  appreciation  of 
their  labors.  This  study  of  the  sources  of  our  catechism 
is  a  wonderful  revelation  of  their  wide  knowledge  of 
previous  catechisms.  And  it  also  reveals  their  wonderful 
ability  in  utilizing  all  this  material  to  form  a  catechism 
finer  than  any  that  had  gone  before.  All  this  know- 
ledge, together  with  the  deftness  with  which  they  linked 
all  together,  and  then  their  masterful  comprehension  of 
the  whole  subject,  reveal  them  as  masters  of  the  catecheti- 
cal art.  This  is  the  more  wonderful  when  we  remember 
that  they  were  still  young,  only  26  and  28  years  of  age. 
But  great  eras  produce  great  genius  and  the  reforma- 
tion was  full  of  illustrations  of  this.  Especially  must  the 
praise  go  to  Ursinus,  who  seems  to  have  been  the  main 
author  of  the  catechism.  He  seems  to  have  been  a 
past-master  of  catechetics,  as  no  one  before  or  after 
him.  But  both  authors  together  produce  in  this  cate- 
chism something  more  beautiful  than  either  produced 
alone.  It  may  well  be  called  a  coat  of  many  colors,  each 
color  representing  a  previous  catechism.  No,  it  is  more 
than  that.  The  threads  of  these  different  catechisms  are 
so  woven  into  each  other  and  through  one  another  as 
to  be  lost  in  the  matchless  whole.  "It  is,"  says  Rev. 
Prof.  G.  W.  Richards,  D.D.,  "not  simply  a  mosaic  of 
excerpts  from  various  sources,  but  a  new  creation  with 
original  strength  and  beauty,  both  a  work  of  art  and  a 
book  of  doctrine." 

What  a  wonderful  catechism  is  ours.  Whether  we 
look  at  the  men  who  wrote  it,  or  at  the  previous  provi- 
dential preparation  in  their  lives  for  writing  it,  or  at  the 
wonderful  way  in  which  they  worked  it  up,  or  at  the  re- 
markable history  of  the  catechism  since  it  came  forth  from 
their  hands,  it  is  all  very  wonderful.  We  can  only  say 
of  it,  as  of  the  Bible,  of  which  it  is  but  the  echo,  that 


THE  PREVIOUS  CATECHISMS  79 

it  is  a  wonderful  book,  because  written,  not  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  as  is  the  Bible,  but  by  the  guidance  of  that  same 
Holy  Spin:  on  its  composers. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE   CATECHISM    OF    URSINUS'    BOYHOOD 

An  unknown  source  of  the  Heidelberg  catechism  was 
the  catechism  of  Ursinus'  boyhood.  Before  he  had  ever 
seen  the  catechisms  of  Calvin,  Juda  or  Lasco,  which  he 
undoubtedly  used  in  the  Heidelberg,  the  first  catechism 
to  which  he  was  introduced  was  the  one  he  studied  in 
the  school  at  Breslau,  his  birthplace,  and  in  which  he 
was  taught  by  his  pastor  in  the  St.  Elizabeth's  Church 
there.  This  catechism  has  been  found.  And  a  lover  of 
the  Heidelberg  catechism  will  examine  it  with  interest, 
so  as  to  see  what  of  it  Ursinus  later  put  into  our  Heidel- 
berg catechism. 

The  city  of  Breslau,  where  Ursinus  was  born,  had 
two  leading  reformers,  John  Hess  and  Ambrose  Moi- 
banus.  It  is  in  the  latter  that  we  are  interested,  for  he 
it  was  who  catechized  Ursinus.  Moibanus  was  a  native 
of  Breslau  and  was  born  there  April  4,  1494.  After 
studying  at  the  schools  of  his  native  city,  he  went,  at  the 
age  of  sixteen,  to  the  university  of  Cracau,  which  had  at 
that  time  attained  to  prominence,  having  produced  one 
of  the  great  world-thinkers,  Copernicus,  the  astronomer. 
When  Moibanus  went  there,  the  new  learning  of  the 
reformation,  humanism,  had  already  entered  the  uni- 
versity, and  Moibanus  there  first  came  into  contact  with 
it.  In  15 15  he  went  to  the  university  of  Vienna,  then 
one  of  the  largest  universities  of  Europe,  having  five 
thousand  students.  There  one  of  the  professors,  named 
Salzer,  who  was  a  humanist,  made  a  deep  impression 

80 


MOIBANUS'  CATECHISM  8l 

on  him.  Moibanus  there  became  a  humanist,  but  of 
a  somewhat  rationahstic  type,  if  he  may  be  judged  by 
his  earhest  writings.  But  there  he  learned  the  Greek 
language,  which  was  the  evangel  of  the  new  reformation, 
superseding  the  sacred  language  of  the  Romish  Church, 
the  Latin,  and  introducing  the  reader  directly  to  the  New 
Testament  with  its  teachings  so  different  from  Catho- 
licism. While  at  Vienna  he  made  a  trip  to  southern 
Germany,  where  he  met  Reuchlin,  who,  with  Erasmus, 
was  the  father  of  humanism  and  who  was  the  teacher 
of  Melancthon.  After  Moibanus  had  returned  to  Vienna 
and  taken  his  degree,  he  entered  the  ranks  of  the  teach- 
ing profession.  And  through  the  influence  of  his  pa- 
tron. Bishop  Turzo,  of  Breslau,  he  was,  in  1518,  made 
rector  of  the  school  of  the  cathedral  there. 

It  was  about  this  time  that  strange  things  began  to 
take  place  at  Wittenberg,  in  eastern  Germany.  Luther 
had  nailed  his  theses  (October  31,  1577)  on  the  door 
of  the  castle  church  against  the  sale  of  papal  indulgences. 
And  as  a  result,  Germany  was  beginning  to  seethe  with 
protests  against  the  abuses  of  Romanism.  Moibanus 
was,  as  we  have  seen,  at  first  a  humanist  of  a  rather 
intellectual  type.  But  as  a  humanist  he  was  friendly 
with  Melancthon,  who  represented  the  humanistic  side 
of  the  early  reformation  in  Germany.  He  visited  Me- 
lancthon at  Wittenberg,  in  1520,  and  thus  came  into  direct 
contact  with  the  reformation.  At  the  death  of  his 
friend  and  patron.  Bishop  Turzo,  who  had  guided  his 
steps  to  humanism  and  who  had  favored  the  cause  of 
the  reformation,  he  resigned  his  position  at  the  cathe- 
dral and  became  rector  of  another  school  in  Breslau. 
that  of  the  St.  Mary  Magdalene  Church,  for  each 
church  had  its  own  parochial  school  at  that  time,  such 
a  thing  as  a  public  school  being  then  unknown.     Moi- 


82  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

banus  there  taught  Greek,  being  the  first  to  teach  that 
language  in  his  native  land  of  Silesia. 

But  it  seems  he  was  not  satisfied  with  being  merely 
a  teacher.  The  humanist  in  him  was  blossoming  out 
into  the  reformer.  His  later  works  show  him  to  have 
been  a  serious-minded  young  man,  and  he  wanted  some- 
thing more  than  mere  teaching  and  humanism.  So  he 
decided  to  exchange  teaching  for  preaching.  And  in 
1523  he  went  to  Wittenberg  to  study  theology.  There, 
though  he  was  friendly  with  Luther,  yet  Melancthon 
was  his  special  friend  and  guide. 

Meanwhile,  as  he  was  studying  the  Protestant  doc- 
trines at  Wittenberg,  Protestantism  broke  out  in  his  na- 
tive city  of  Breslau.  John  Hess  was  elected  pastor  of  the 
Mary  Magdalene  Church,  May  20,  1523.  And  two  years 
later  (1525)  Moibanus  was  elected  pastor  of  the  St. 
Elizabeth's  Church,  for  many  in  it  remembered  the  ex- 
cellent work  he  had  done  in  Breslau  as  a  teacher  and 
hoped  much  from  him  as  a  pastor.  His  election  as 
pastor  made  two  of  the  churches  of  Breslau  Protestant, 
Hess  being  already  pastor  at  the  St.  Mary  Magdalene 
Church.  Many  were  the  controversies  that  these  two 
reformers  had  with  the  priests  of  the  cathedral,  which, 
after  the  death  of  Bishop  Turzo,  became  the  stronghold 
of  the  Catholics.  But  Protestantism  finally  triumphed 
in  Breslau, 

Now  it  was  his  pastorate  of  the  St.  Elizabeth's 
Church  that  makes  him  interesting  to  us,  for  it  brought 
him  into  contact  with  Ursinus,  one  of  the  authors  of  our 
Heidelberg  catechism,  who  was  born  in  that  parish.  But 
before  taking  up  his  relations  to  Ursinus,  let  us  briefly 
look  at  his  life  and  complete  it.  After  he  became  pastor 
of  St.  Elizabeth's  Church,  he  introduced  Protestant  cus- 
toms into  the  Church.     He  changed  the  language  of  the 


MOIBANUS'  CATECHISM  83 

services  from  Latin  into  the  German,  and  put  away  many 
Catholic  ceremonies.  But  he  was  a  man  of  mild  spirit 
and  introduced  the  reformation  with  great  common 
sense,  avoiding  conflict,  if  possible.  He  was  a  Lutheran 
of  the  earlier  type,  when  it  was  hard  to  distinguish 
Lutheranism  from  the  Reformed;  this  was  before  the 
controversies  had  started,  which  so  sadly  divided  them 
later.  Trials  came  upon  him  to  deepen  his  piety.  The 
Turks  came  and  captured  Breslau  in  1537.  The  plague 
appeared  in  1543,  and  took  away  one-fifteenth  of  the 
inhabitants.  In  1537,  Moibanus,  though  usually  a  man 
of  peace,  came  out  strongly  against  the  sects,  for 
Schwenkfeldians  and  Anabaptists  existed  around  him. 

After  the  death  of  Hess,  he  was  for  many  years  the 
head  of  the  Protestant  Church  of  that  city.  He  died 
at  the  age  of  sixty,  on  January  16,  1554,  after  having 
been  twenty-nine  years  pastor  at  St.  Elizabeth's.  He 
was  a  man  of  great  piety  and  peace,  passing  away  just  as 
the  terrible  strife  broke  out  between  the  high-  and  low- 
Lutherans.  Indeed,  it  was  his  irenic  disposition  and 
great  common  sense  that  had  been  a  great  factor  in 
keeping  out,  for  many  years,  all  strife  in  Breslau.  But  it 
broke  out  as  soon  as  he  died,  and  Ursinus  was  the 
sufferer. 

We  have  dwelt  on  his  life  at  some  length  because 
of  his  great  influence  on  Ursinus.  No  one  can  measure 
the  influence  of  a  pastor  on  a  young  and  developing 
child  in  his  congregation.  He  is  certain  to  be  a  potent 
force  in  that  one's  life,  either  for  good  or  else,  alas,  for 
evil.  It  was  the  influence  of  Zwingli's  uncle,  the  priest 
of  Wesen,  that  made  the  boy  Zwingli  the  humanist,  that 
made  him  later  the  great  reformer.  It  was  the  influ- 
ence of  his  patron.  Bishop  Turzo,  that  had  made  Moi- 
banus a  humanist  and  an  Evangelical.     Such  an  influ- 


84  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

ence  Moibanus  passed  on  to  Ursinus,  for  it  was  his 
influence  that  led  Ursinus  to  go  to  Melancthon,  and 
also  prepared  him  to  become  Reformed.  He  also  gave 
to  Ursinus  his  love  for  peace.  For  Ursinus  naturally 
disliked  controversy,  yet,  strange  to  say,  had  to  pass 
most  of  his  life  in  it.  Moibanus  gave  to  Ursinus,  who 
was  naturally  inclined  to  intellectualism,  a  practical  bent 
of  mind  which  corrected  it.  Ursinus  was  naturally  in- 
clined to  conscientiousness  and  serious-mindedness,  and 
it  was  the  earnest  ministrations  of  his  godly  pastor  that 
deepened  these  and  guided  his  piety  into  its  best  channels. 
And  when  we  pass  from  Moibanus'  personal  influence 
on  Ursinus  to  his  influence  on  him  through  his  cate- 
chism, we  shall  see  how  deeply  he  worked  himself  into 
the  life  of  his  pupil. 

It  was  in  this  parish  of  St.  Elizabeth  that  a  boy, 
whom  Moibanus  baptized  Zachariah  Baer,  was  born  on 
July  1 8,  1534.  This  name,  Baer,  was  later  latinized, 
after  the  manner  of  that  age,  into  Ursinus.  Ursinus, 
when  a  boy  of  from  twelve  to  fifteen  years  of  age,  went 
to  religious  instruction  under  Moibanus,  so  as  to  be  pre- 
pared for  confirmation ;  for  in  Germany  the  course  of 
instruction  in  the  catechism  lasts  longer  than  with  us, 
and  is  quite  thorough.  It  was  in  this  school  of  St. 
Elizabeth,  at  Breslau,  that  Ursinus  first  came  into  contact 
with  the  educational  ideas  of  the  humanists,  which  Moi- 
banus had  introduced  there.  No  wonder  he  became  the 
great  dialectician  of  later  years,  for,  from  his  earliest 
years,  he  had  been  trained  to  its  clearness  and  logical- 
ness  of  thought  under  Moibanus.  He  continued  under 
the  direct  influence  of  Moibanus  until  his  sixteenth  year, 
when  he  went  away  to  the  university  of  Wittenberg. 

And  Moibanus  still  continued  to  influence  him  after 
he  had  gone  to  Wittenberg,   for  Moibanus  was  in  the 


%m\  Mmm  nf  tfie  Etfnrtntb  Cfmrtjj 
ill  filnittim. 


Tamil  Series,  No.  IV. 

THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM. 


O ^  eff  £ii  iriu ^    O ^  ifl (S  s  @p ^ p(^ 

esi&pQL-'SvQuiTx  sibpStQsitvui 


€r  car  em  La 


Q(SuQ^(ruQ^^     (Lp^^TiSUGli^. 


>f'SS^- 


JI  A  D  R  A  S  : 

PniNTED    AND    PUBLISHED   BY   n.    W.  LAURIE, 
IT    THE    CDBISIIiW     li .VOW I. ED 0 K     SOCIETY'S    PBI3»,     TEPSBT- 

1  8  C  9. 

The    title-page   of   the    Heidelberg   catechism    in    the    Tamil 
language.     See  pages  13-14. 


MOIBANUS'  CATECHISM  85 

habit  of  helping  students  through  school  and  to  college; 
and  it  was  doubtless  he  who  got  some  of  the  citizens  of 
Breslau  to  give  Ursinus  money  to  go  away  to  college. 
It  was  Moibanus  who  gave  him  a  letter  to  Melancthon, 
which  thus  predisposed  him  to  become  a  Melancthonian. 
In  all  this  we  see  how  Moibanus  was  all  unconsciously 
preparing  Ursinus  for  his  great  work  on  our  catechism. 

The  writer's  attention  was  first  called  to  Moibanus 
and  his  catechism  by  reading  the  brief  biography  of  Moi- 
banus, by  Konrad,  an  assistant  minister  of  St.  Elizabeth's 
Church,  in  Breslau,  which  was  published  im  1891.  On 
page  49  of  that  biography,  Konrad  says  of  Moibanus' 
catechism : 

"It  is  a  statement  of  Christian  piety  according  to  the 
principles  of  the  reformers.  It  gathers  together  the  most 
important  brief  statements  of  doctrine  so  as  to  be  learned 
by  heart  and  then  more  fully  explained.  In  this  respect 
this  catechism  can  be  considered  a  forerunner  of  the 
Heidelberg." 

"This  is  all  that  Konrad  said,  but  it  was  enough  to 
lead  the  writer  to  institute  a  search.  And  when,  shortly 
after,  a  visit  to  Breslau  led  to  the  finding  of  a  copy  of 
this  book,  he  at  once  began  an  examination  to  see  what 
there  was  in  Moibanus'  catechism  that  was  in  the  Heidel- 
berg, and  with  startling  results. 

Moibanus  published  his  first  catechism  in  February, 
1533,  only  four  years  after  Luther  published  his  cate- 
chism. It  was  a  Latin  catechism.  In  1535  he  pub- 
lished it  again,  but  in  German,  and  in  1537,  again,  in 
Latin.  His  catechism  greatly  stirred  up  the  Catholic 
priests  at  the  cathedral  in  Breslau,  who  found  it  difficult 
to  answer.  They  published  two  replies  at  the  expense 
of  the  chapter  of  the  cathedral — one  by  Hildebrand,  the 
other  by  Cochlaeus,  in  1537.  The  latter  bitterly  com- 
plains about  Moibanus,  that  he,  a  layman,  should  pre- 


86  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

sume  to  perform  ministerial  acts.  The  catechism  of 
1535  had  also  quite  a  commentary  on  each  paragraph 
of  the  catechism,  and  it  was  stated  in  the  introduction 
that  this  edition  was  intended  for  those  who  did  not  go  to 
school,  just  as  the  Latin  one  had  been  intended  for  the 
school  pupils.  But  the  catechism  in  both  Latin  and  Ger- 
man had  the  same  contents  and  arrangements.  It  was 
not  arranged  in  the  form  of  question  and  answer,  but 
consisted  of  brief  paragraphs.  The  fact  is,  that  it  took 
the  Church  in  Reformation  times  quite  a  while  to  learn 
that  the  Socratic  method  (by  question  and  answer),  was 
the  best.  Thus  Calvin's  first  catechism  was  not  arranged 
/in  questions  and  answers,  but  in  chapters  like  a  theologi- 
\  cal  treatise.  His  second  edition  has  questions  and  an- 
swers. And  when  the  Reformation  Church  began  to  use 
the  questions  and  answers,  it  sometimes  tried  to  use 
i  them  in  the  wrong  way.  Thus  the  first  catechism  of 
\  Leo  Juda,  of  Zurich,  made  the  catechumen  ask  the  ques- 
/  tions  and  the  minister  give  the  answers.  This  was 
changed  in  his  next  catechism  to  our  present  method, 
where  the  minister  asks  the  questions  and  the  pupil  gives 
the  answers.  In  view  of  all  this,  one  is  not  surprised 
that  Moibanus'  catechism,  like  many  catechisms  of  that 
period  in  the  Protestant  Church  of  Germany,  was  not  in 
the  form  of  questions  and  answers,  but  in  paragraphs. 
The  catechism  of  1535  had,  however,  an  appendix  ar- 
ranged in  question  and  answer.  It  was  in  the  form  of  a 
dialogue  between  father  and  son.  This  dialogue  was 
changed  in  the  edition  of  1537  and  1538  into  a  dialogue 
between  teacher  and  pupil.  The  former  was  evidently 
intended  for  home  instruction,  the  latter  for  the  schools. 
Ursinus  doubtless  studied  the  Latin  edition  which  was 
used  in  the  schools.     This  catechism  acquired  circulation 


MOIBANUS'  CATECHISM  87 

beyond  Breslau,  for  it  was  somewhat  used  in  Branden- 
burg. 

But  in  all  these  catechisms,  whether  in  Latin  or  Ger- 
man, the  order  of  the  topics  is  the  same  and  the  main 
paragraphs  are  the  same.  The  book  is  divided  into  ten 
heads:  i,  piety;  2,  the  law;  3,  the  gospel;  4,  Christ;  / 
5,  the  sacraments ;  6,  baptism ;  7,  the  Lord's  Supper ;  8, 
love  and  good  works;  9,  calling;  and  10,  prayer. 

Moibanus'  catechism  was  practical  and  experimental. 
It  did  not  begin  with  a  statement  of  doctrine  or  with  a  ' 
historical  statement,  as  some  catechisms  begin  with  the 
fall  of  man  in  Eden.  It  began  with  a  practical  subject,  ■'. 
and  yet  one  of  the  greatest  importance  to  a  child — the 
subject  of  piety.  Piety  it  divided  into  two  parts — man's, 
relation  to  man  and  also  to  God.  Piety  toward  man  is 
to  live  an  honorable  and  blameless  life  before  men ; 
piety  toward  God  is  to  live  a  life  of  faith  in  Him.  The 
subjects  that  come  next,  "the  law,"  "Gospel"  and 
"Christ,"  are  treated  in  a  practical  way.  Of  the  sacra- 
ments, which  come  next,  we  will  speak  later.  After  the 
sacraments,  the  catechism  devotes  three  sections  to  the 
practice  of  religion,  thus  returning  to  its  idea  at  the  be- 
ginning,— namely,  piety.  Two  of  these  sections  are  en- 
titled "love,  or  good  works,"  and  "calling,"  which  treats 
of  duties  to  parents,  masters  and  magistrates.  The  cate- 
chism closes  with  a  section  on  prayer,  and  shows  what  the 
catechumen  should  pray,  why  and  to  whom.  These  clos- 
ing paragraphs  of  the  catechism  are  so  beautiful  and  de- 
votional that  we  may  pause  to  give  them.  He  defines 
prayer  as  a  "calling  for  divine  help  and  strength  through 
Jesus  Christ,  our  bishop,  priest  and  intercessor  before 
God,  the  Father,  in  each  affliction  and  anxiety."  The 
last  paragraph  reads  thus  : 

"Prayer  is,  therefore,  our  only  anchor  to  which  we 


88  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

can  have  refuge  when  crosses  come  upon  us.  And  the 
only  prayer  that  rises  out  of  genuine  faith  cries  to  heaven 
and  sighs  from  the  heart :    'Father,  Father,  dear  Father.'  " 

With  this  expression  of  endearment,  the  catechism 
closes  in  as  practical  a  way  as  it  began  on  the  subject 
of  piety.  Piety  and  prayer  at  its  beginning  and  end, 
how  beautiful ! 

Such,  in  brief,  is  the  catechism  which  Ursinus  had  to 
learn  when  a  boy.  And  now  the  interesting  question 
comes  before  us,  "Is  there  anything  in  this  catechism 
of  Moibanus  that  Ursinus  put  into  the  Heidelberg  cate- 
chism ?"  Much  research  has  been  made  into  the  sources 
of  the  Heidelberg  catechism,  as  we  have  seen,  by  Pro- 
fessors Gooszen  and  Lang.  They  have  clearly  shown 
that  Ursinus  and  Olevianus  used  other  catechisms  in 
preparing  the  Heidelberg,  mainly  the  catechisms  of 
Strasburg,  Zurich,  Geneva  and  Lasco.  But  none  of 
these  writers  on  the  sources  of  the  catechism  have  gone 
back  as  far  in  Ursinus'  life  as  to  take  up  the  catechism 
of  his  boyhood.  Let  us  then  compare  the  two  cate- 
chisms and  see  where  the  Heidelberg  is  indebted  to  Moi- 
banus' catechism. 

This  catechism  of  Moibanus'  is  not  only  interesting 
as  a  source-book  of  the  Heidelberg,  but  also  because  it 
gives  us  an  insight  into  the  religion  of  Ursinus  as  a 
boy.  A  boy's  faith  is  always  an  interesting  study.  We 
shall  see  in  this  study  the  contents  of  Ursinus'  boyish 
faith  by  noticing  the  things  in  Moibanus'  catechism 
that  he  put  into  the  Heidelberg.  They  were  the  abiding 
things  of  his  early  faith.  For  the  boy  is  father  of  the 
man,  and  a  boy's  religion  is  prophetic  of  his  religion  as 
a  man.  The  first  view-point  that  a  boy  gets  of  religion  is 
apt  to  stay  with  him  and  color  all  his  later  religious 
experiences. 


MOIBANUS'  CATECHISM  89 

What,  then,  were  the  religious  impressions  of  the 
boy  Ursinus?  You  can  see  it  by  noting  the  truths  of 
Moibanus'  catechism  that  he  puts  into  the  Heidelberg. 
The  religious  truths  of  his  boyhood  catechism,  that  made 
the  deepest  and  most  lasting  impression  on  him,  he  put 
into  the  Heidelberg,  written  about  15  years  after  he 
studied  Moibanus'  catechism.  He  evidently  felt  that 
the  truths  that  impressed  him  most  as  a  boy  would  be 
the  ones  that  would  impress  other  boys  and  girls,  and  so 
he  puts  them  into  the  Heidelberg.  For  there  are  three 
or  four  fundamental  religious  truths  that  it  is  exceed- 
ingly important  a  child  should  get  clearly  and  strongly. 
They  are  his  ideas  of  God,  of  sin,  of  faith,  and  of  the 
Christian  life.  It  is  all-important  that  he  should  get 
right  ideas  about  them.  For  wrong  ideas  on  them  have 
often  made  shipwreck  of  many  for  this  life  and  the 
next.  Let  us  look  especially  at  these  doctrines  especially 
for  a  few  moments. 

And,  first,  the  doctrine  of  God.  It  is  needless  to  say 
that  this  doctrine  is  fundamental  to  all  other  doctrines, 
whether  for  adults  or  for  children.  As  our  Gods  are, 
so  are  we.  Now  what  was  the  idea  of  God  that  Ursinus 
learned  as  a  boy.  It  was  that  God  was  a  Father.  This 
idea  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God  is  not  a  modern  idea, 
as  the  new  theology  claims,  for  it  is  repeated  over  and 
over  again  in  Moibanus'  catechism.  Now  it  is  very  im- 
portant that  a  boy  get  just  this  idea  of  God.  For  some- 
times God  is  depicted  to  the  young  as  a  severe  judge  or 
as  a  sort  of  policeman,  or  perhaps  as  an  arbitrary  sov- 
ereign. The  supralapsarian  Calvinists  used  to  paint  God 
as  a  sovereign  of  arbitrary  will.  Children  when  grown 
to  years  often  react  against  such  caricatures  of  God. 
But  Ursinus  was  taught  as  a  boy  that  God  was  a  Father, 
"a  heavenly  Father,"  "a  gracious  Father."     And  it  is  in- 


90  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

teresting  to  see  that  this  is  the  idea  of  God  that  he  puts 
into  our  Heidelberg  catechism,  so  that  the  children,  who 
learn  the  catechism,  may  gain  that  conception.  Our  cate- 
chism is  not  constructed  after  the  hard  lines  of  supra- 
lapsarian  Calvinism,  with  its  emphasis  on  the  decrees, 
but  after  the  loving  spirit  of  sublapsarian  Galvanism, 
with  its  emphasis  not  on  the  decrees,  but  on  redemption.* 

The  Heidelberg  emphasizes  not  the  severity  of  God 
in  election,  but  the  grace  and  mercy  of  God.  This  doc- 
trine of  the  Fatherhood  of  God  is  beautifully  brought 
out  in  answer  26,  where  it  says : 

"He  is,  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  his  Son,  my  God 
and  my  Father,  in  whom  I  rely  so  entirely  that  I  have 
no  doubt  that  he  will  provide  me  with  all  things  neces- 
sary for  soul  and  body." 

The  next  two  answers  (27  and  28),  are  full  of  this 
thought  of  God,  as  in  28  it  says : 

"We  place  our  firm  trust  in  our  faithful  God  and 
Father,  that  nothing  shall  separate  us  from  His  love." 

The  Heidelberg  catechism  is  a  catechism  of  God's 
love.  Ursinus  learned  this  great  truth  when  a  boy.  And 
every  one  who  reads  his  letters  will  see  that  he  is  full 
of  this  idea,  even  at  times  when  everything  seemed  dark 
to  him.  He  was  saved  from  pessimism  only  by  his  be- 
lief that  God  was  a  loving  Father. 

But  such  an  idea  of  God  may  become  sentimental. 
Because  God  loves  us  so  much,  we  may  be  led  to  pre- 
sume too  much  on  his  love ;  and  so  some  have  used  this 
idea  as  an  incentive  to  sin  rather  than  a  restraint  against 
sin.  A  God  of  mere  love  makes  God  to  be  a  weak  God. 
As  Prof.  A.  Strong  says,  "It  gives  us  not  the  fatherhood 
of  God,  but  the  papahood  of  God,"  by  which  God  be- 
comes an  infinite  papa  rather  than  an  all-wise  Father. 

*  For  the  sublapsarians  over  against  the  infralapsarians  be- 
lieved in  universal  atonement. 


CHIN-HOK  t 


BUN-TAP. 


T<i"-ma-ji  Sian-si'  Hoau-ek  ^. 


E-MNG. 
1907. 

The   title-page  of   the   Heidelberg  catechism   in   the   Chinese 
language  in  Latin  letters.    See  page  14. 


MOIBANUS'  CATECHISM  91 

So  the  belief  in  the  love  of  God  must  be  connected  with 
the  idea  of  a  just  God  also.  These  two  attributes  of 
love  and  justice  give  us  a  true  idea  of  God.  They  are 
correlative  to  each  other.  Love  tempers  justice;  justice 
gives  strength  to  love.  Such  an  idea  of  God  also  gives 
a  proper  idea  of  sin ;  for  a  God,  who  is  not  just  by  pun- 
ishing sin,  produces  a  vague  idea  of  sin  and,  therefore, 
of  its  punishment.  Many  a  boy  goes  ofif  into  a  life  of 
sin  because  he  does  not  have  the  proper  corrective  in 
a  proper  idea  of  God  as  a  God  of  love,  but  also  of  unerr- 
ing justice. 

Now,  Ursinus  received  an  idea  of  God,  and  of  his 
justice  in  relation  to  sin,  in  his  boyhood,  from  Moibanus' 
catechism.  And  the  idea  he  received  then  seems  to  have 
left  a  lasting  impression  on  his  mind,  for  he  repeats  the 
very  words  of  Moibanus'  catechism  in  the  Heidelberg. 
Scripture  verses  are  rarely  incorporated  in  the  Heidel- 
berg catechism.  The  verses  of  the  Bible  are  often  used 
as  proof-texts ;  but  rarely  do  you  find  one  given  in  full 
in  the  text  of  the  catechism.  There  must  have  been 
some  unusual  reason,  or  it  would  not  have  been  placed 
there.  This  makes  the  Scripture  text  to  which  we  re- 
fer the  more  noticeable.  We  have  often  wondered  at 
the  Scripture  text  in  answer  10  of  the  Heidelberg: 
"Cursed  in  every  that  continueth  not  in  all  things  that 
are  written  in  the  book  of  the  law  to  do  them."  We 
have  often  wondered  why  Ursinus  chose  that  particular 
text.  For  there  is  something  harsh  about  that  verse. 
The  idea  of  cursing  is  an  ofifensive,  not  a  pleasant  one 
to  this  age,  which  so  often  attempts  to  emasculate  God's 
wrath  by  using  empty  phrases  and  gentler  language. 
One  feels  that  there  are  other  Bible  verses  on  the  same 
subject  that  might  have  better  been  chosen,  such  as  "the 
soul  that  sinneth   it  shall  die."     Why  did  Ursinus  use 


92  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

this  particular  text  in  the  Heidelberg.  If  you  will  turn 
to  the  catechism  of  his  boyhood  you  will  see  the  reason 
why,  for  it  is  there.  That  verse  evidently  made  a  deep 
impression  on  him  as  a  boy  and  must  have  lingered  with 
him  till  he  wrote  the  Heidelberg,  For  he  was  of  a  very 
conscientious  disposition,  indeed  overconscientious,  and 
this  verse  must  have  come  home  to  him  with  terrible 
force  and  often  kept  him  from  sin.  As  it  had  been  so 
powerful  in  himself,  he  evidently  felt  it  was  just  the 
verse  to  put  into  the  Heidelberg,  as  he  believed  it  would 
be  as  powerful  on  the  children  who  studied  it  as  it  had 
been  on  him. 

Take  another  important  subject  of  a  boy's  religion — 
faith.  We  have  often  wondered  where  the  Heidelberg 
catechism  got  that  complete  and  magnificent  definition  of 
faith  in  answer  21,  the  best  definition  in  any  catechism, 
"Faith  is  not  only  a  certain  knowledge  *  *  *  but  also 
an  assured  confidence."  The  German,  which  is  the  ori- 
ginal language  of  the  catechism,  has  it  better  than  the 
English,  not  merely  "an  assured  confidence,"  but  "a  hearty 
confidence."  Some  years  ago  we  thought  we  had  found 
the  source  of  this  expression  in  the  catechism  of  Calvin,  in 
whose  first  edition  there  is  a  section  on  confidence  in 
God.  Strange,  is  it  not,  that  Calvin,  who  is  usually  reck- 
oned so  cold,  as  cold  as  an  icicle,  should  produce  a  sec- 
tion of  such  warmth  of  heart.  However,  the  recent 
publication  of  Calvin's  letters  has  shown  that  Calvin 
was  not  so  cold,  and  that  he  had  a  warm  heart  as  well  as 
a  great  head.  But  we  can  get  this  definition  of  faith  as 
"a  hearty  confidence"  in  our  catechism  more  nearly  than 
in  Calvin's.  Lo,  the  very  words  of  this  definition  are  in 
Moibanus'  catechism.  Ursinus  learned  that  idea  of  faith 
from  his  pastor  when  he  was  a  boy.  In  the  tenth  para- 
graph,  under  the  first  head  of   Moibanus'  catechism — 


MOIBANUS'  CATECHISM 


93 


namely,  piety — we  read  the  statement :  "Faith  is  the 
very  highest  and  heartiest  confidence  of  the  children  of 
God."  That  high  idea  of  his  boyish  religion  Ursinus 
never  outlived.  He  put  it  into  the  Heidelberg.  It  always 
remained  with  him  as  his  greatest  consolation.  To  show 
you  its  unusual  influence  in  our  21st  answer,  it  is  to  be 
remembered  that  Ursinus  was  mainly  a  man  of  intellect. 
He  was  a  logician,  an  Aristotelianist.  The  intellectual 
idea  of  faith  would,  therefore,  have  been  the  one  that 
would  be  apt  to  have  caught  his  eye  and  then  frame  his 
life.  Had  he  defined  faith  naturally  he  would  have  in- 
clined to  stop  with  the  first  part  of  the  definition  of  the 
Heidelberg,  which  says  that  faith  is  "a  certain  knowledge 
whereby  I  hold  for  truth  all  God  has  revealed  in  his 
word."  Why  did  he  complete  this  by  saying  faith  was 
"a  hearty  confidence?"  Because  Moibanus,  in  his  cate- 
chism, had  given  him  an  experimental  idea  of  faith.  We 
probably  never  would  have  had  so  complete  a  definition 
of  faith  if  Ursinus  had  not  been  under  Moibanus. 

A  fourth  very  important  doctrine  to  the  child,  is  the 
view  he  is  taught  concerning  the  Christian  life.  What 
idea  did  Ursinus  learn  from  Moibanus?  The  eighth  sec- 
tion of  Moibanus'  catechism  is  entitled  "Love  or  good 
works" — that  is,  the  Christian  life  consists  of  good  works 
or  love.  Love  is  the  motive  and  good  works  the  result. 
Ursinus  never  got  beyond  this  idea  of  the  Christian  life 
as  love  to  God.  Indeed,  his  two  greatest  ideas  seem 
to  have  been  that  God  was  his  Father,  and  the  Christian 
life  was  a  life  of  love  to  God.  You  can  see  this  by  the 
way  he  expresses  himself  in  the  Heidelberg.  Almost  at 
the  very  beginning  is  the  fifth  answer:  "What  is  the 
law  of  God?"  And  the  answer  is  not  given  in  the  Ten 
Commandments,  as  is  done  by  most  catechisms  of  that 
day,  which  place  the  decalogue  first.     No,  the  Heidel- 


94  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

berg  uses  the  two  commandments  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment— the  "royal  law,"  as  they  are  called,  "Thou  shalt 
love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  etc.,  and  thy 
neighbor  as  thyself."  This  is  better  than  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments, for  they  are  negative ;  these  are  positive. 
The  decalogue  refers  to  the  outward  act,  these  to  the 
inward  motive.  But  there  is  also  a  special  reason  why 
Ursinus  puts  these  two  commandments  in  the  Heidel- 
berg. It  is  because  Moibanus'  catechism  does  not  have 
the  Ten  Commandments  at  all  in  his  text.*  The  idea 
of  God's  law  is  given  thus  by  Moibanus :  "Thou  shalt 
love  God  for  all  things  and  thy  neighbor  as  thyself." 
Ursinus  seems  to  have  learned,  as  a  boy,  to  love  this 
statement  as  the  best  summary  of  the  law,  and  he  em- 
phasized it  in  our  catechism  by  putting  it  at  the  beginning. 

And  this  idea  of  the  Christian  life,  as  a  life  of  love, 
runs  through  the  Heidelberg.  Why,  even  the  answer  in 
the  Heidelberg,  on  good  works,  seems  like  an  echo  of 
Moibanus'  statements  about  good  works,  for  both  urge 
the  setting  aside  of  all  reliance  on  the  flesh,  and  Moi- 
banus urges  entire  reliance  on  faith  in  order  to  make  the 
works  good. 

Thus  we  see  that  the  main  ideas  of  his  boyish  religion 
Ursinus  put  into  the  Heidelberg,  in  order  that  they  might 
be  useful  to  other  children  as  they  had  been  to  him.  And 
that  is  one  among  many  reasons  why  the  Heidelberg  is 
a  catechism  of  such  power.  It  is  not  merely  an  intellect- 
ual theological  treatise,  but  the  record  of  a  personal  ex- 
perience. There  are  also  lesser  references  of  the  Heidel- 
berg to  Moibanus.     Thus  the  idea  of  comfort,  which  is 

*  One  edition  had  the  text  of  the  Decalogue  printed  at  the 
end  of  the  catechism  with  the  creed  and  Lord's  Prayer,  but  no 
question  or  commentary  on  it,  and  another  had  a  brief  dialogue 
on  it.     But  it  is  not  in  the  main  body  of  the  catechism. 


MOIBANUS'  CATECHISM  95 

so  prominent  at  the  beginning  of  the  Heidelberg,  is  once 
incidentally  found  in  Moibanus.  Moibanus  also  closes 
with  a  prayer :  so  does  the  Heidelberg,  whose  answers  on 
the  Lord's  Prayer  are  in  the  form  of  prayers.  But 
time  fails  to  dwell  upon  these.  We  might  also  speak  of 
the  differences  and  contrasts  between  Moibanus  and  the 
Heidelberg.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  the  Heidelberg  is  a 
far  advance  on  Moibanus'  in  many  ways,  yet  it  must  be 
remembered  that  Moibanus  wrote  at  the  beginning  of  the 
catechetical  period  of  the  sixteenth  century  and  Ursinus 
near  its  close.  Ursinus  had  more  than  a  quarter  of  a 
century  of  catechetical  literature  behind  him  from  which 
to  draw,  while  Moibanus  did  not  have  much  before  him 
that  he  could  utilize. 

But  it  is  especially  on  the  sacraments  that  we  meet 
with  a  surprise.  Here  there  is  almost  nothing  of  high- 
Lutheranism — one  is  almost  tempted  to  say  nothing  of 
Lutheranism  at  all.  It  defines  the  sacraments  as  seals 
and  promises  given  in  order  to  take  away  all  doubts. 
But  "signs  and  seals"  is  the  Reformed  statement. 

On  baptism  it  is  slightly  more  Lutheran  than  on  the 
Lord's  Supper.     Here  are  his  paragraphs  on  baptism : 

1.  There  are  two  things  in  baptism.  One  is  that 
when  we  are  baptized  in  water  we  thus  recognize  our 
uncleanness,  and  that  we  are  sinners  from  Adam  down. 
The  other  is  that  we  receive,  by  faith  in  our  hearts,  a 
true  confession  that  we  are  purified  by  the  death  of 
Christ  and  born  again.* 

2.  In  this  way  baptism  enables  us  our  whole  life  to 
overcome  this  wicked  world,  which  is  the  kingdom  of  the 
devil,  and  for  this  reason  Paul  always  calls  baptism  the 
mortification  of  the  flesh. 

3.  By  baptism  one  goes,  just  like  the  Israelites  of 

*  The  likeness  between  this  answer  and  answer  69  of  the 
Heidelberg  is  clearly  seen,  for  both  distinguish  between  the  two 
parts  of  baptism. 


96  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

old,  through  the  Red  Sea  to  the  holy  and  promised  land, 
which  is  the  Kingdom  of  Christ. 

Now  in  all  this  there  is  no  emphasis  laid  on  baptismal 
/  regeneration,  which  is  the  peculiar  doctrine  of  high- 
Lutheranism.  Indeed  it  is  over  against  high-Lutheranism 
by  bringing  in  faith  as  a  necessity.  And  on  the  other 
hand,  it  does  make  a  good  deal  of  a  meaning  of  baptism 
that  is  often  forgotten  by  Lutherans,  and  that  was  empha- 
sized by  the  Reformed — namely,  that  baptism,  as  well  as 
the  Lord's  Supper,  has  a  close  reference  to  the  death  of 
Christ.  Moibanus  brings  this  out  more  especially  in  his 
comments  on  these  paragraphs.  And  we  suspect  that  it 
was  this  emphasis  on  the  relation  of  baptism  to  the  death 
of  Christ,  that  may  have  led  Ursinus  to  so  emphasize  the 
death  of  Christ  in  the  answers  on  baptism  (69-73)  ""^  the 
Heidelberg.  However,  in  his  commentary  on  the  cate- 
chism, Moibanus  three  times  refers  to  baptism  as  the 
washing  away  of  sin;  but  this  was  restricted  to  believers. 
And  there  is  the  same  emphasis  as  in  the  catechism  on 
the  intimate  relation  of  baptism  to  the  cross  and  blood 
of  Christ.  In  his  comments  he  spends  more  time  in  argu- 
ing against  the  Anabaptists  than  he  does  on  the  nature 
of  baptism  itself,  for  he  denounces  them  because  he  says 
they  held  that  children  cannot  sin  until  they  are  fourteen 
years  of  age. 

But  it  is  especially  on  the  Lord's  Supper  that  the 
greatest  surprise  awaits  us.  Here  there  is  nothing  spe- 
cifically Lutheran.  This  catechism  stands  out  in  con- 
trast with  other  Silesian  catechisms,  which  devote  much 
space  to  the  sacraments,  and,  with  the  exception  of 
Schwenkfeld's,  are  distinctly  Lutheran.  The  Lutherans 
always  emphasized  the  presence  of  the  real  body  of  Christ 
in  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  Zwinglians  emphasized  the 
memorial  aspect,  that  it  reminds  us  of  the  death  of  Christ 


The  title-page  of  the   Heidelberg  catechism   in   the  Japanese 
language.     See  page  14. 


MOIBANUS'  CATECHISM  97 

for  us.  What  does  Moibanus  say?  Let  us  note  his 
language : 

"i.  The  use  of  this  holy  sacrament  consists  in  this, 
that  one  becomes  a  partaker  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ,  which  only  belongs  to  those  who  are  baptized  in 
Christ. 

"2.  Christ  says,  when  he  had  taken  the  bread  in  his 
hand,  'Take,  eat,  this  is  my  body,  etc'  And  when  he 
had  taken  the  cup,  he  said:  'Drink  ye  all  of  it,  for  this 
cup  is  the  New  Testament  of  my  blood.  For  as  oft  as 
ye  drink  of  it  ye  do  show  the  Lord's  death.' 

"3.  In  these  words  Christ  reminds  us  that  we  should 
take  to  heart  how  much  he  has  loved  us.  Also  that  he 
has  given  his  body  to  the  most  shameful  death,  and  shed 
his  blood  as  a  testimony  of  our  redemption. 

"4.  And  to  this  he  added  the  words  with  a  very  trust- 
ful heart,  as  he  says :    'This  do  in  my  remembrance.' 

"5.  In  this  one  can  easily  see,  when  and  for  what 
reason,  one  should  use  this  most  worthy  sacrament — 
namely,  when  you  feel  that  your  heart  has  grown  cold  in 
the  remembrance  of  Christ's  death  and  his  benefits  for 
us  poor  sinners  and  has  grown  entirely  careless." 

Now,  in  all  this  there  is  nothing  said  about  the  pres- 
ence of  the  real  body  of  Christ  in  the  supper  upon  which 
the  Lutherans  harped  so  much.  It  is  true  the  expression 
that  the  communicant  "become  a  partaker  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ"  is  used,  but  that  form  of  expression 
the  Reformed  were  also  accustomed  to  use.  In  Moibanus' 
commentary  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  he  says,  "It  is  true 
that  Christ  gives  his  true  body  and  not  the  shadow  of 
it,"  in  which  he  probably  refers  to  the  Zwinglian  doctrine 
which  made  it  purely  symbolical.  But  even  if  these 
expressions  be  taken  as  Lutheran,  yet  they  are  made  sec- 
ondary. The  Lord's  Supper's  most  prominent  reference 
is  to  the  death  of  Christ. 

He  also,  in  his  dialogue  between  the  father  and  son, 
calls  "the  sacraments,  signs  of  the  present  Christ,  who 


98  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

performs  everything  in  the  sacrament  by  his  grace,  and 
makes  the  Lord's  Supper  a  sign  of  the  new  covenant." 
And  yet  the  phrase  "signs  of  the  present  Christ"  is  dif- 
ferent from  the  phrases  used  by  the  stiff  Lutherans  in 
pihng  on  adjectives  "real,"  "substantial,"  etc.,  so  as  to 
show  that  Christ  was  really  present.  That  phrase  could 
have  been  used  by  Calvin,  and  was,  indeed,  used  by  the 
Reformed,  though  they  interpreted  it  as  referring  only  to 
a  spiritual  presence.  The  second  idea  of  the  sacrament 
as  a  covenant  is  quite  in  line  with  Calvin,  who,  in  the 
sacraments,  emphasizes  the  covenant  idea. 

All  this  becomes  somewhat  more  significant  because 
Moibanus  had  been  charged  with  being  a  Zwinglian. 
There  had  been  Zwinglianism  at  Breslau,  for  in  1530  the 
third  minister  had  been  a  Zwinglian.  And  in  1538  Moi- 
banus had  been  charged  before  his  bishop  with  being  a 
Zwinglian.  This  he  denied  in  a  letter  to  the  bishop.  But 
there  was  probably  this  truth  in  it  all,  not  that  he  was  a 
Zwinglian,  but  that  he  was  a  low-Lutheran  on  the  sacra- 
ments, if  not  a  Calvinist.  It  is  also  significant  that  in 
all  his  bitter  attack  on  the  sects,  as  given  in  his  catechism, 
he  does  not,  like  most  Lutherans,  include  the  Zwinglians, 
but  only  the  Anabaptists  and  the  Schwenkfelders.  While 
Moibanus  would  probably  not  have  been  satisfied  with 
the  Zwinglian  statement  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  he  could 
have  been  with  Calvin's,  which  makes  the  Lord's  Supper 
more  than  a  memorial — makes  Christ  present,  but  spirit- 
ually. That  Moibanus  is  likely  to  agree  with  Calvin  is 
shown  by  a  very  interesting  letter,  which  we  give  in  the 
later  chapter  on  "Ursinus'  Conversion  to  the  Reformed 
Faith."  We  might  also  call  attention  to  a  significant 
omission  in  this  catechism.  It  has  not  a  word  to  say 
about  confession,  as  do  many  of  the  Lutheran  catechisms, 
and  as  does  Luther's  own  catechism. 


MOIBANUS'  CATECHISM  99 

In  addition  to  these  results  of  Moibanus'  catechism 
on  Ursinus  we  may,  in  closing,  note  two  more : 

1.  The  variety  of  the  arrangement  in  Moibanus'  cate- 
chism was  a  school  for  Ursinus,  and  led  him  to  prepare, 
in  the  Heidelberg,  a  catechism  suited  to  all  classes  of 
children.  The  great  variety  in  Moibanus'  catechism, 
sometimes  with  questions  and  answers,  sometimes  with- 
out :  sometimes  for  adults,  sometimes  for  children :  some- 
times for  parents  and  children,  sometimes  for  teachers 
and  children,  must  have  early  familiarized  him  with  the 
proper  method  of  reaching  all  classes.  The  catechism 
of  Aloibanus,  doubtless  also,  led  him  to  become  interested 
in  catechization.  As  a  result  of  it,  it  seems  he  became 
an  expert  in  the  study  of  different  catechisms.  He  be- 
came a  great  master  of  catechization.  And  that  was  the 
reason  why  he  was  able  to  prepare  our  Heidelberg  cate- 
chism, which  was,  as  we  have  seen,  the  ripe  fruit  of  a 
more  than  a  quarter  century  of  catechetical  effort  on  the 
part  of  the  Church.  Moibanus'  catechism  prepared 
Ursinus  to  become  the  great  catechist,  which  enabled  him 
to  write  the  Heidelberg. 

2.  It  was  Moibanus'  catechism  that  made  Ursinus, 
at  the  beginning  of  his  Christian  life,  an  experimental 
Christian,  and  thus  enabled  him  to  write  so  experimental 
a  catechism  as  the  Heidelberg.  The  great  subject  of 
Moibanus'  catechism  was  piety,  personal  experience,  as 
an  inspiration  to  right  living.  How  fortunate  it  was  for 
Ursinus  that  the  first  conception  of  religion,  presented  to 
him  in  his  boyhood,  was  the  experimental.  For  Ursinus, 
as  we  have  seen,  was  not  naturally  inclined  to  be  experi- 
mental. He  was  naturally  intellectual,  very  intellectual. 
This  shows  itself  later,  as  he  excelled  in  dialectics.  He 
was  also  inclined  to  the  ethical,  as  duty  ruled  with  him. 
He  was  inclined  to  be  conscientious  or  rather  over-con- 


lOO  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

scientious.  Both  of  these  are  apt  to  undervalue  the  ex- 
perimental. And  yet  he,  who  later  became  an  intellectual 
giant,  this  coldly  moral  young  man,  produced  a  catechism 
in  the  Heidelberg,  whose  chief  characteristic  is  personal 
experience.  Is  it  not  strange  ?  How  was  it  ?  We  believe 
it  was,  in  a  large  part,  due  to  the  fact  that  Moibanus 
started  him  in  this  direction  through  his  catechism.  Ur- 
sinus  owes  his  great  inspiration  for  the  emotional  and 
experimental  to  Moibanus  as  his  teacher.  And  we  who 
love  the  Heidelberg  have  Moibanus  to  thank  for  making 
Ursinus  experimental,  that  he  might  give  us  a  catechism 
that  begins  with  comfort  for  this  life  and  the  next,  and 
in  our  catechism  looms  up  before  us. 

In  view  of  all  these  facts  Moibanus  and  his  catechism 
grow  in  value  in  their  relation  to  our  precious  catechism, 
and  they  may  be  called  the  forerunners  of  it,  and  Moi- 
banus deserves  to  rank  with  Bucer,  Juda,  Calvin  and 
Lasco,  as  the  great  importance  of  his  influence  in  Ursinus 
looms  up  before  us. 

May  we,  in  closing,  call  attention  to  two  practical 
lessons : 

I.  How  careful  a  minister,  in  catechizing  his  chil- 
dren, should  be  to  give  them  right  ideals  of  life.  We 
do  not  believe  that  he  would  give  them  false  ideals,  at 
least  intentionally.  But  sometimes  he  fails  to  give  them 
any  ideals  of  life  when  he  has  every  opportunity  to  do 
so  in  the  catechetical  class.  And  this  sin  of  omission  may 
lead  some  of  them  at  last  to  destruction.  But  when 
he  gives  them  great  ideals  and  deeply  impresses  them  as 
Moibanus  did  Ursinus,  in  his  ideal  of  faith  as  a  hearty 
confidence,  of  love  to  God  and  man  as  the  ideals  of  life, 
how  wonderful  and  far-reaching  are  its  results ;  yes,  how 
eternal  the  fruitage.  Oh,  how  careful  ministers  should  be 
in  catechization.     We  have  known  some  ministers  who 


MOIBANUS'  CATECHISM  loi 

made  their  catechetical  lectures  merely  cold,  heartless, 
theological  lectures,  which  never  affected  the  heart  or 
life  of  the  catechumen.  And  on  the  other  hand,  we  have 
known  ministers  whose  catechization  never  went  far  be- 
fore their  catechumens  were  convicted  of  sin,  and  soon 
rejoicing  in  the  joy  of  the  new  birth.  How  dreadful  the 
former  method,  how  blessed  the  latter. 

2.  How  beautiful  is  a  boy's  faith,  "Except  ye  become 
as  a  little  child,  etc."  How  simple,  yet  strong,  is  a  boy's 
faith,  clearer  in  vision  often  than  a  man's,  as  he  has  it 
before  the  doubts  and  trials  of  later  years  have  come  on 
him.  For  it  is  natural  for  a  child  to  believe.  He  in- 
stinctively understands  faith.  How  that  clear,  yet  strong, 
faith  ennobles  his  character  and  makes  him  a  joy  to  him- 
self, a  blessing  to  the  world.  May  God  help  us  to  pro- 
duce such  results  in  our  catechization  in  our  ministry. 


CHAPTER  III 

PETER  RAMUS  AND  HIS  SIGNIFICANCE  FOR  THE  CATECHISM 

Two  great  reformers  were  produced  by  France  in  the 
sixteenth  century.  With  the  one  the  world  is  very  fa- 
miliar— John  Calvin.  Concerning  the  other  the  world 
at  large  knows  comparatively  little.  But  Peter  Ramus, 
who  was  the  other,  was  one  of  the  most  distinguished 
philosophers  of  that  century.  The  one  was  the  reformer 
in  religion  and  theology;  the  other  the  reformer  in  the 
sphere  of  philosophy  and  thought.  Strange  to  say,  these 
two  great  men  were  born  in  the  same  district  of  northern 
France — Picardy — and  lived,  in  early  life,  within  a  few 
miles  of  each  other,  Peter  Ramus  being  six  years  the 
younger. 

The  grandfather  of  Ramus,  though  of  noble  family, 
had  been  compelled  by  reverses  to  become  a  mere  char- 
coal burner.  His  father  was  a  laborer  and  died  when 
Peter  was  little  more  than  a  child.  Peter  was  born  in 
15 15  at  Cust.  As  a  boy  he  was  intensely  eager  for  know- 
ledge and  soon  exhausted  the  little  learning  of  the  school- 
master of  the  town.  Before  he  was  twelve  years  of  age 
he  had  twice  pushed  on  to  Paris,  so  as  to  satisfy  his 
burning  desire  for  learning.  And  twice  poverty  had  com- 
pelled him  to  return  home  again  from  Paris.  Of  his 
early  sufferings  from  poverty  he  was  never  ashamed ;  and 
when  at  last  he  became  a  teacher  he  persistently  tried  to 
establish  gratuitous  instruction  in  Paris  for  such  poor 
boys  as  he  had  been.  Finally  at  the  age  of  twelve  he 
obtained  employment  as  a  servant  to  a  rich  student  in  the 

102 


PETER  RAMUS  103 

College  of  Navarre  at  Paris,  and  thus  was  able  to  begin 
his  academical  studies.  His  poor  widowed  mother  also 
sold  her  land  in  order  that  he  might  gain  an  education,  a 
sacrifice  later  compensated  by  his  tender  solicitude  for 
her  all  his  life.  But  though  he  could  now  study  it  was 
laborious  work,  for  he  could  study  only  at  night,  as  his 
master  demanded  his  services  by  day.  It  is  said  that  he 
arranged  an  automatic  alarm  to  waken  himself  after  a  few 
hours  of  sleep  by  the  attachment  of  a  stone  to  a  lighted 
cord,  which  fell  and  woke  him  up.  Thus  he  followed  the 
example  of  the  old  philosopher,  Cleanthes,  in  getting 
knowledge  by  the  aid  of  oil  and  lamp.  Fortunately,  he 
was  a  healthy  boy,  or  he  could  not  have  stood  this  ordeal, 
as  it  was  he  had  trouble  at  times  with  his  eyes.  After 
passing  the  secondary  course  he  spent  three  and  a  half 
years  in  the  study  of  dialectics,  as  the  higher  course  was 
then  called. 

When  he  was  through  with  his  course  he  was  su- 
premely disgusted  with  its  uselessness.  He  then  startled 
his  school  and  later  startled  the  world  by  his  denunciation 
of  the  philosophy  of  Aristotle,  whose  philosophy  and 
logic  had  ruled  the  world  for  centuries.  Indeed  this 
Greek  philosopher  came  nearly  being  called  "St.  Aris- 
totle," for  Cousin  says  that  several  times  he  narrowly 
escaped  canonization  at  the  hands  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
as  Buddha  had  been  canonized  as  St.  Josaphat.  As  Calvin 
aimed  at  the  reformation  of  the  Church,  so  Ramus  aimed 
at  the  reformation  of  the  schools.  Calvin  produced  a 
new  era  in  theology.  Ramus  aimed  to  produce  a  new  era 
in  philosophy.  It  was,  indeed,  a  bold  thing  for  so  young  a 
man  (only  twenty-one)  to  do,  when  at  his  examination 
for  the  degree  of  master,  in  1536,  he  formulated  as  the 
subject  of  his  disputation  the  proposition,  "All  that  Aris- 
totle says  is  false."    He  there  maintained  first  that  Aris- 


104  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

totle's  writings  were  spurious,  and,  second,  that  they  con- 
tained only  errors.  We  can  imagine  the  consternation  of 
the  authorities  of  the  university  of  Paris  and  the  un- 
paralled  audacity  of  the  young  student,  as  he  thus  threw 
down  the  intellectual  gauntlet  to  Paris,  and  indeed  all 
Europe.  But  his  disputants  were  helpless,  for  as  Aris- 
totle's works  were  declared  by  him  to  be  false,  they  could 
not  appeal  to  them  for  proof.  They  attacked  his  theses 
for  a  whole  day,  but  were  refuted  with  such  power  by 
Ramus  that  they  were  compelled  to  give  him  his  degree. 
Tassoni,  the  Italian  poet,  says  he  defended  himself  with 
such  subtlety  that  Paris  was  stupefied  and  bewildered. 
Luther's  nailing  the  theses  to  the  church  door  at  Witten- 
berg was  a  parallel  to  his  boldness.  Ramus  was  wrong 
in  declaring  that  the  writings  attributed  to  Aristotle  was 
not  Aristotle's.  And  yet  he  was  right.  What  he  attacked 
was  not  the  real  Aristotle  of  classic  antiquity,  but  the 
fictitious  Aristotle  that  had  become  current  in  the  Church, 
the  Christian  Aristotle,  the  Romish  Aristotle,  that  the 
Catholic  Church  had  conjured  up  and  who  differed  from 
the  pagan  original.  He  attacked  the  pseudo-Aristotle, 
which  had  become  an  incubus  to  human  thought  and  an 
obstruction  to  human  progress.  Ramus,  therefore,  de- 
clared it  to  be  the  right  of  men  to  think  for  themselves 
and  not  to  have  all  their  thinking  done  for  them  by  a 
man  like  Aristotle,  or  men  like  the  schoolmen  of  the 
middle  ages,  who  had  lived  centuries  before,  and  who 
based  everything  on  Aristotle.  His  act  was  nothing  less 
than  a  "Declaration  of  Independence"  in  the  sphere  of 
philosophy. 

The  degree  of  Master,  which  was  then  given  him,  gave 
him  the  right  to  teach,  and  he  began  lecturing  at  the  little 
college  of  Ave  Maria,  in  Paris.  There  he  proclaimed  a 
new  educational  ideal  over  against  the  Aristotelians.    His 


PETER  RAMUS  105 

new  method  of  education  (for  he  introduced  the  hu- 
manistic studies,  and  for  the  first  time  Greek  and  Latin 
authors  were  read  at  the  same  time)  caused  the  students 
to  come  in  crowds  to  hear  him.  He  was  also  one  of  the 
greatest  orators  of  his  day,  and  that  also  gave  him  great 
fame. 

Time  fails  to  speak  except  briefly  of  his  career  as  a 
teacher  in  Paris,  for  it  does  not  particularly  concern  us 
in  our  study  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism.  Suffice  it  to 
say  that  he  started  a  tremendous  controversy,  the  Aris- 
totelians (and  they  were  many)  massed  their  forces 
against  him.  As  they  were  not  able  to  answer  him  in 
debate  they  tried  to  suppress  him  by  authority.  They 
got  the  civil  authorities  to  ask  that  his  books  be  sup- 
pressed. He  was  summoned  before  the  provost  of  Paris 
as  a  "corrupter  of  the  youth,"  and  his  case  was  carried 
up  even  to  the  French  parliament.  For  though  Ramus 
was  still  a  Catholic,  the  Catholic  Church  instinctively 
realized  that  he  was  attacking  its  foundation  in  Aris- 
totelianism  (for  the  schoolmen  held  that  "without  Aris- 
totle's categories  there  was  no  religion  in  Christianity.") 
His  enemies  declared  he  was  a  philosophical  heretic,  just 
as  Calvin  was  a  theological  heretic.  A  commission  was 
appointed,  the  majority  of  whom  were  Aristotelians. 
They  decided  against  him,  and  at  once  their  sentence 
against  him  was  publicly  placarded  all  over  the  streets  of 
Paris.  Yes,  he  was  publicly  ridiculed  on  the  stage  amid 
the  applause  of  the  populace.  The  Aristotelians  made  it 
as  great  a  celebration  as  if  they  were  celebrating  a  great 
national  victory.  But  Ramus  was  one  of  those  rare  char- 
acters, who  seemed  to  thrive  on  opposition  and  ridicule. 
The  sentence  against  him  forbade  him  to  teach  philosophy, 
so  he  began  teaching  classics  and  mathematics,  and  in 
spite  of  the  opposition  many  students  thronged  to  hear 


lo6  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

him,  on  account  of  his  ability  and  eloquence.  He  was 
the  first  to  introduce  into  the  university  of  Paris  the 
teaching  of  mathematics  worthy  of  that  science,  and  he 
acquired  the  name  of  being  "the  first  mathematician  of 
France."  All  this  reveals  his  great  versatility  of  mind, 
for  he  was,  as  Pasquier  calls  him,  "a  universal  mind." 

When,  however,  the  next  king,  Henry  II,  came  to  the 
throne,  in  1547,  everything  changed.  The  patron  of 
Ramus,  Charles  of  Lorraine,  had  been  the  tutor  of  the 
king,  and  his  first  act  was  to  get  the  king  to  abrogate 
the  decree  against  Ramus.  So  Ramus'  books  were  again 
published,  and  he  began  lecturing  on  philosophy.  And 
he  now  went  further.  He  not  only  attacked  the  authority 
of  Aristotle,  but  also  that  of  Cicero  and  Quintillian,  who 
had  been  the  beau-ideals  of  rhetoric  and  a  classic  edu- 
cation. For  Ramus  was  also  a  reformer  in  education. 
He  claimed  the  right  of  the  new  age  to  have  new  ideas, 
and  objected  to  slavish  admiration  of  antiquity  all  the 
time.  He  roused  a  tremendous  strife,  in  which  there 
finally  appeared  a  champion  against  him  who  became  his 
lifelong  enemy  and  who  (as  we  shall  see)  at  last  pro- 
cured his  death.  This  enemy  was  Carpentier,  a  Catholic 
professor  of  theology,  at  Paris.  For  just  as  John  Huss 
had  been  put  to  death  because  he  was  a  realist  in  phi- 
losophy, so  Ramus  was  killed  because  he  was  an  anti- 
Aristotelian.  Carpentier  debarred  the  students  of  Ramus' 
college  from  receiving  the  degrees  of  the  university.  So 
an  appeal  was  made  to  parliament,  and  here,  again.  Ramus 
gained  his  rights.  The  king,  who  was  favorable  to  him, 
in  order  to  prevent  his  enemies  from  again  persecuting 
him,  established  a  chair  of  philosophy  and  appointed  him 
as  lecturer  to  it  in  1551.  He  was  now,  at  the  early  age 
of  36,  royal  lecturer,  and  he  drew  great  crowds.  His 
fame  also  spread  to  other  lands.     The  more  he  was  at- 


PETER  RAMUS  107 

tacked  the  more  his  reputation  grew.  He  published,  in 
1554,  his  "Institutes  of  Logic,"  the  most  important  work 
on  philosophy  before  Descartes. 

But  now  his  success  changed  to  adversity.  This  was 
due,  no  doubt,  to  the  death  of  the  king.  But  another 
cause  began  to  appear.  He  began  to  show  learnings 
toward  the  Reformed  religion.  Ten  years  before,  one  of 
his  students  had  written  to  Sturm,  of  Strasburg,  that 
Ramus  was  secretly  a  Protestant.  Nevertheless,  for  a 
decade  longer  he  protested  his  fidelity  to  the  Church  of 
Rome.  He  claimed  that  he  had  attacked  Aristotle  only 
in  the  name  of  the  gospel,  because  his  ethics  was  pagan 
and  heretical.  The  cause  of  his  conversion  to  Protes- 
tantism as  this  time  was  the  famous  Colloquy  of  Poissy, 
near  Paris,  held  in  September,  1561,  where  the  Reformer 
Beza  most  eloquently  pled  the  cause  of  the  Hugenots 
before  the  king.  But  it  was  not  so  much  Beza's  address 
that  affected  Ramus,  as  it  was  the  admissions  to  its  truth 
made  in  his  reply  to  Beza  by  his  friend  the  Cardinal  of 
Lorraine,  for  the  cardinal  admitted  the  abuses  of  the 
Church,  the  vices  of  the  clergy  and  the  superiority  of 
the  Apostolic  Church  to  the  Romish  Church  of  his  day. 
Waddington,  the  great  biographer  of  Ramus,  says  that 
the  two  things  that  made  Ramus  change  were  (i)  the 
protection  that  the  Catholic  Church  gave  to  Aristotelian- 
ism,  and  (2)  the  ignorance  of  the  Romish  clergv',  for 
a  contemporary  declares  that  the  Huguenots  possessed  at 
that  time  a  monopoly  of  the  knowledge  and  the  talent 
of  France.  Ah!  he  was  like  all  logicians,  but  following 
out  the  logic  of  his  own  premises.  His  attacks  on  Aris- 
totelianism  could  have  only  one  logical  result — namely, 
lead  him  out  of  the  Romish  Church,  whose  philosophy 
was  based  on  it. 

Still,  though  a  Protestant  at  heart,  he  did  not  as  yet 


Io8  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

openly  or  even  secretly  join  the  Reformed,  but  his  pupils 
more  and  more  discarded  Catholic  worship.  And  one 
day  in  1562,  when  the  edict  gave  the  Huguenots  freedom 
of  worship,  the  students  of  his  college  (many  of  whom 
were  sons  of  Huguenots)  burst  into  the  chapel  and  tore 
down  the  images  and  statues.  Ramus  had  nothing  to  do 
with  this,  but  he  received  the  popular  blame  for  it,  which 
his  philosophical  enemies  helped  to  increase.  In  1562 
war  broke  out  between  the  Huguenots  and  the  Catholics 
and  Ramus  had  to  flee  from  Paris,  but  came  back  the 
next  year.  However,  he  was  not  safe,  for  on  two  occa- 
sions his  life  was  attempted  by  hired  assassins.  But  so 
impressed  were  they  by  his  courage  and  dignity  and  the 
persuasiveness  of  his  words  that  they  retreated,  leaving 
him  unharmed.  But  his  stay  was  for  only  a  few  years, 
for  his  enemies,  especially  Carpentarius,  were  bitterly  at- 
tacking him  all  the  while.  When  another  war  broke  out, 
in  1567,  he  escaped  massacre  by  fleeing  to  the  Huguenot 
camp  at  St.  Denis.  There  he  used  his  great  eloquence 
successfully  to  induce  the  German  troops  not  to  go  home, 
but  to  remain,  even  at  less  pay. 

But  in  1568,  because  of  the  dangers,  he  left  France. 
And  it  is  this  trip  that  especially  interests  us  in  con- 
nection with  the  Heidelberg  catechism.  Though  he  was 
at  this  time  virtually  expatriated  from  France,  yet  his 
tour  virtually  became  a  triumphal  journey,  especially 
among  Protestant  scholars.  By  this  time  his  reputation 
had  become  so  great  that  he  was  called  the  "French 
Plato,"  because  he  held  to  Platonism  over  against  Aris- 
totelianism.  He  first  went  to  Strasburg,  then  to  Basle. 
Here  he  received  his  warmest  reception,  and  had  the  most 
scholars,  and  here  he  stayed  the  longest — nearly  a  year. 
He  was  entertained  by  the  lady  who  had,  many  years  be- 
fore,  entertained   Calvin.     He  also  visited  Zurich   and 


PETER  RAMUS  109 

then  came  to  Heidelberg  in  the  fall  of  1569,  It  is  in  this 
visit  that  we  are  specially  interested,  as  it  reveals  an 
interesting  internal  situation  at  Heidelberg  at  that  time, 
and  also  throws  a  sidelight  on  the  Heidelberg  Catechism. 

Ramus,  while  at  Heidelberg,  was  the  guest  of  Tre- 
mellius,  the  converted  Jew,  who  was  professor  of  He- 
brew in  the  university.  He  was  so  impressed  by  Tre- 
mellius  that  he  decided  to  devote  the  rest  of  his  life  to 
the  study  of  theology.  He  now  at  last  made  a  public 
profession  of  Protestantism  in  the  French  Reformed 
Church  at  Heidelberg,  and  partook  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
after  the  Reformed  fashion.  He  was  so  pleased  with 
Heidelberg  that  he  would  have  been  willing  to  accept  a 
professorship  there,  and  Elector  Frederick  HI  was  in- 
clined to  give  one  to  him.  But  difficulties  came  in  the 
way  as  a  great  controversy  arose,  which  reveals  a  very 
interesting  situation  in  regard  to  the  authors  of  our  cate- 
chism. The  university  of  Heidelberg  had  been  strongly 
Aristotelian,  and  the  arrival  of  this  distinguished  French 
philosopher  caused  considerable  consternation  among  the 
Aristotelians.  There  was  also  a  small  party  in  it  of  more 
liberal  views.  He  was  cordially  welcomed  by  Olevianus, 
Boquin,  J.  Alting,  Dathenus,  Junius  and  Zuleger,  and 
received  a  warm  reception  by  Elector  Frederick  HI  as  the 
great  Reformed  writer  in  literature. 

Before  Ramus  came,  the  professor  of  ethics,  Strig- 
elius,  had  died.  So  on  October  8  a  petition  was  presented 
to  the  senate  of  the  university  by  sixty  students, — mainly 
French  and  foreigners — asking  that  the  vacant  chair  of 
ethics  be  given  to  Ramus.  The  senate,  anxious  to  prevent 
this,  threw  out  the  petition  on  a  mere  technicality.  But 
meanwhile  Elector  Frederick  HI  had  become  so  favorably 
impressed  by  Ramus  that  he  decided  to  appoint  him  to 
the  vacant  chair.     Indeed,  when  Ramus,  having  stayed 


no  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

there  some  time,  considered  whether  he  would  not  go 
away,  Frederick  urged  him  to  remain  so  as  to  fill  a  chair 
as  a  professor  extraordinary  until  the  wars  in  France  had 
sufficiently  subsided  to  permit  him  to  return.  Ramus 
accepted  the  offer,  and,  on  October  29,  Frederick  in- 
formed the  rector  of  the  university  of  this  appointment. 
On  November  9,  the  university  senate  replied  by 
remonstrating  against  the  appointment.  Ramus  ad- 
dressed a  letter  November  10,  saying  that  he  had  been  ap- 
pointed by  the  Elector  as  lecturer,  and  that  he  was  wait- 
ing for  them  to  make  arrangements  for  him  to  deliver  his 
lecturers.  The  senate  decided  to  ignore  his  letter,  and 
went  at  once  into  the  election  of  a  professor  to  fill  the 
vacant  chair  of  ethics,  and  nominated  Professor  Xylander. 
This  they  did  to  keep  Ramus  out.  The  senate  also  stated 
to  the  Elector  the  reason  for  its  opposition  to  Ramus, 
that  it  was  because  he  was  such  a  bitter  foe  to  Aris- 
totelianism,  which  they  said  had  been  the  official  method 
of  instruction  in  the  university.  The  university  claimed 
that  the  Elector  had  acted  contrary  to  its  statutes  by  not 
waiting  until  they  had  first  made  a  nomination.  So  they 
now  appealed  to  the  chancellor  of  the  Elector's  court  for 
a  decision  on  its  legality.  But  he  declared  that  Frederick 
had  the  right  to  make  the  appointment,  and  gave  them 
to  understand  that  if  they  would  not  admit  Ramus  he 
would  have  recourse  to  some  other  means  to  bring  it 
about.  The  Elector  had  been  greatly  embarrassed  by 
the  whole  affair.  He  had  promised  Ramus  to  let  him 
lecture,  and  yet  he  did  not  want  to  seem  to  violate  the 
statutes  of  the  university.  The  decision  of  the  chancellor 
relieved  him.  He  now  (December  11)  informed  the 
rector  of  the  university  that  Ramus  was  authorized  with- 
out delay  to  begin  a  course  of  lectures  on  Cicero's  "De- 
fense of  Marcellus."    The  rector  then,  together  with  the 


CATECHISMUS. 


MANGALENEH : 


TATENTIRO  (AGAMA  SAHANI  E) 


PIA 


KAKIWALONEH  R.  SASIMBANGEH 


TINARA  SU  SOAN  HEIDELBERG  SU  TAUNG  1563. 


Nitumpan  C.  W.  J.  STELLER, 

nitara  su  katellusujeneh 

SU    pananarang    u    firma 

E.  J.  BRILL, 

SU  soan  Leiden,  su  taung  1906, 

The   title-page   of   the   Heidelberg   catechism    in    the    Sangiri 
language.     See  page  14. 


PETER  RAMUS  III 

heads  of  the  four  departments  of  the  university,  pre- 
sented themselves  personally  to  the  Elector  to  plead  with 
him  against  Ramus.  But  after  listening  to  them,  Fred- 
erick, with  evident  ill-humor,  dismissed  them  by  simply 
saying  that  he  had  read  their  remonstrances.  It  is  to  be 
noticed,  however,  that  this  course  of  lectures  on  Cicero 
was  not  philosophical,  but  rhetorical  and  classical. 

So  Ramus  began  lecturing  December  14,  and  there 
was  a  great  tumult  at  his  first  lecture.  For  the  students, 
as  well  as  the  professors,  had  to  be  reckoned  with  in  this 
controversy  between  Aristotelians  and  Ramists.  The 
students  were  divided  into  two  parties.  The  German 
students  were,  as  a  rule,  against  Ramus,  while  the  foreign 
students,  especially  the  French,  were  either  in  his  favor 
or  at  least  wanted  to  hear  him.  Among  the  latter  was 
one  named  Campogarolle,  who  defended  the  authority 
of  the  Elector,  and  had  declared  that  in  spite  of  the  uni- 
versity Ramus  should  lecture.  Before  the  arrival  of 
Ramus  at  the  lecture  room  the  Aristotelian  students  took 
away  the  steps  to  the  platform  from  which  he  was  to 
lecture,  hoping  that  he  would  not  be  able  to  get  up  to  it 
and  lecture.  But  when  he  arrived  one  of  the  French 
students  supplied  the  place  of  the  steps  with  his  back,  and 
Ramus  using  it  as  a  step,  mounted  up  to  the  desk.  When 
he  tried  to  commence  the  Aristotelians  interrupted  him 
with  whistles,  shouts  and  great  stamping  of  feet.  But 
they  had  reckoned  without  their  host.  Ramus  had  gone 
through  such  storms  before  in  Paris.  And,  as  at  Paris, 
so  here,  he  had  the  quick  wit  to  turn  them  to  his  ad- 
vantage. According  to  a  listener  his  peroration  was  so 
eloquent  as  to  carry  his  audience  with  applause,  in  spite 
of  his  opponents.  After  that  he  continued  his  lectures 
with  great  success. 

When  this  course  of  lectures  closed  on  January  2, 


112  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

1570,  the  Elector,  at  the  request  of  his  son,  Christopher, 
one  of  the  students,  asked  him  to  deliver  a  course  on 
Aristotle's  dialectics  to  the  students.  This  caused  a 
tremendous  excitement  in  the  university,  as  his  opponents 
knew  he  would  attack  their  master,  Aristotle.  For  his 
first  course  of  lectures  had  been  on  the  classics,  this,  how- 
ever, would  be  on  philosophy.  The  rector  of  the  uni- 
versity appeared  before  the  Elector  and  begged  him  to 
consider  the  preservation  of  order  in  the  university.  He 
also  asked  him  not  to  take  counsel  of  inexperienced  young 
men  (probably  referring  to  his  son),  but  of  the  uni- 
versities of  Wittenberg  and  Leipsic.  This  led  the  Elector 
to  delay  a  little  so  as  to  consult  others  who  had  great 
influence.  Ursinus  finally  succeeded  in  stopping  the 
whole  matter,  as  he  told  the  Elector  that  Ramism  was 
neither  a  true  dialectics  nor  a  true  rhetoric,  because  many 
parts  of  them  were  left  out.  He  declared,  in  his  terse, 
sententious  way,  that  by  it  the  youth  would  learn  to  fly 
without  feathers,  to  read  without  syllables  or  letters.  As 
a  result  Elector  Frederick  HI  decided  to  suspend  the 
course  of  lectures  on  Aristotle,  though  he  presented 
Ramus  with  his  portrait  as  a  token  of  his  esteem.  Thus, 
the  Aristotelians  were  victorious.* 

The  significance  of  all  these  events  at  Heidelberg  will 
appear  in  a  moment.  We  hasten  to  conclude  this  biog- 
raphy of  Ramus  (already  too  long,  but  which  it  has  been 
impossible  to  shorten)  by  giving  the  tragic  end  of  Ramus. 
Having  left  Heidelberg  he  went  to  Geneva  and  then  back 
to  Paris.  He  tried  to  get  back  to  his  old  professorship 
there.  But  his  old  friend,  the  Cardinal  of  Lorraine,  had 
now  turned  his  back  on  him,  because  he  had  become  a 
Protestant.     Then  he  tried  to  get  to  Geneva,  but  Beza, 

*  Ursinus,  in  a  letter  to  Camerarius,  July  17,  1575,  speaks  of 
"the  shameful  arrogant  sophistry  and  babbling  of  Ramus." 


PETER  RAMUS  113 

who  was  an  Aristotelian,  opposed  his  coming.  Every 
where  Aristotelianism  tried  to  keep  him  out.  Finally 
another  friend  got  him  back  as  professor  in  the  Royal 
College  in  1571.  But  it  was  not  for  long.  His  inveterate 
enemy,  Carpenterius,  followed  him  relentlessly.  Then 
came  the  awful  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew,  in  August, 
1572. 

He  might  have  escaped  it  had  he  listened  to  his  friend, 
Bishop  Montluc,  who,  though  a  Catholic,  was  Evangeli- 
cally inclined.  Montluc  wanted  him  to  go  to  Poland 
with  him,  and  offered  him  large  pay  if  he  would  go  there 
so  as  to  promote  the  election  of  Henry  of  France  as  King 
of  Poland.  But  when  Ramus  found  that  Montluc's  only 
object  was  to  utilize  his  superior  persuasive  eloquence 
to  dazzle  the  Poles,  he  declined,  saying,  as  he  did  so,  "An 
orator  ought,  above  everything  else,  to  be  an  honest  man" 
— that  is,  eloquence  should  never  be  made  a  mercenary 
thing.  Besides,  to  elevate  a  bigoted  Catholic  to  the  throne 
of  Poland  was  a  task  for  which  he  had  no  sympathy. 
Montluc  started  August  17,  and  Ramus,  if  he  had  gone 
with  him,  would  have  escaped  the  massacre,  which  oc- 
curred August  24.  And  it  was  not  until  the  third  day  of 
the  massacre  that  his  turn  came.  And  then  it  was  rather 
a  piece  of  petty,  private  revenge  on  the  part  of  Carpen- 
tarius,  than  the  result  of  the  general  massacre.  For 
Ramus  had  friends ;  yes,  he  had  in  his  possession  a  safe 
conduct  of  the  king. 

But,  at  last,  hired  assassins  forced  their  way  into  his 
study  on  the  fifth  floor  of  his  college.  As  they  entered 
he  was  in  the  act  of  prayer.  As  he  rose  from  his  knees 
his  venerable  dignity  as  an  old  man,  for  a  moment,  over- 
awed the  assassins.  As  he  could  hope  for  no  mercy,  he 
spent  the  few  moments,  while  they  pillaged  his  room,  in 
prayer,  thus,  "O,  my  God,  against  Thee,  Thee  only  have  I 

8 


114  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

sinned  and  done  this  evil  in  Thy  sight.  Thy  judgments 
are  justice  and  truth.  Have  mercy  on  me  and  pardon 
these  wretched  men,  O  God,  for  they  know  not  what  they 
do."  The  leader  of  the  band  then,  with  frightful  im- 
precations, shot  him  in  the  head,  and  long  after  bullet 
marks  could  be  seen  in  the  wall.  Then  another  plunged 
his  sword  into  his  body.  Then  the  inhuman  brutes  seized 
the  half-lifeless  body  and  dragged  it  to  and  fro  on  the 
floor.  Years  afterward  visitors  to  the  college  of  Presles, 
when  shown  the  room  where  the  greatest  of  its  presidents 
had  been  so  barbarously  treated,  were  wont  to  express 
surprise  at  the  blood-stained  floors  in  terms  similar  to 
Lady  Macbeth:  "Who  would  have  thought  the  old  man 
had  so  much  blood  in  him."  His  body  was  then  flung 
from  the  window  of  his  room  and  fell  into  the  courtyard 
of  the  college  five  stories  below.  Furious  students,  urged 
on  by  merciless  professors,  tied  cords  to  his  legs  and 
dragged  the  body  through  the  streets  to  the  river  Seine, 
where  a  surgeon  cut  off  the  head  and  the  trunk  was 
thrown  into  the  river,  but  it  was  again  drawn  ashore  and 
literally  hacked  to  pieces.  His  friend,  Lambricius,  when 
he  heard  these  atrocious  details  of  his  death,  was  pros- 
trated with  grief  and  terror,  so  that  he  immediately  took 
to  his  bed  and  died  in  a  few  days.  It  was  one  of  the 
most  horrible  deaths  of  that  horrible  massacre,  and  was 
all  due  to  Carpentarius. 

Such  was  the  tragic  fate  of  the  great  philosopher  who 
attempted  to  reform  the  philosophy  of  the  sixteenth 
century.  Calvin,  the  reformer,  died  in  his  bed  a  natural 
death.  But  Ramus,  the  reformer,  died  awfully  as  a 
martyr  for  his  Reformed  faith.  Of  the  2,000  martyred 
Huguenots  at  Paris  in  the  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew, 
Coligny  and  Ramus  were  the  greatest.  Thus  perished 
the  mightiest  intellect  and  noblest  spirit  of  France  in  that 


PETER  RAMUS  115 

century.  Years  before,  when  comparing  his  lot  with 
Socrates,  he  said :  "Only  the  hemlock  is  wanting."  Alas ! 
a  more  cruel  fate  than  Socrates  befel  him. 

And  now  what  has  all  this  to  do  with  the  Heidelberg 
catechism.  It  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  composition, 
for  Ramus  did  not  get  to  Heidelberg  until  six  years  after 
the  publication  of  the  catechism.  And  yet,  from  this  sub- 
ject, we  get  an  important  light  thrown  backward  on  the 
catechism.  It  reveals  to  us  this  interesting  fact,  that  the 
two  main  authors  of  our  catechism  were  on  opposite  sides 
in  this  Ramus'  controversy.  Ursinus,  with  most  of  the 
university  faculty,  was  Aristotelian.  On  the  other  hand, 
Olevianus,  with  Tremellius  and  others  were  Ramists. 
And  what  does  this  signify.  It  shows  this  that  Ursinus 
and  Olevianus  were  of  two  different  types  of  mind.  In 
Ursinus  the  analytic  was  prominent,  in  Olevianus  the 
synthetic.  And  the  Heidelberg  catechism  was  the  mature 
result  of  the  combination  of  two  differing  types  of 
mind.  Ursinus  clearly  shows  the  analytic  in  his  works, 
for  in  them  he  sometimes  carries  it  almost  toward  the 
extremes  of  the  schoolmen.  But  Olevianus  revealed  that 
in  him  the  analytic  was  limited  by  the  practical  ends  in 
view.  Cuno  says :  "Olevianus  emphasized  the  practical, 
and,  therefore,  became  a  Ramist.  Ursinus,  on  the  other 
hand,  was  a  student  far  from  active  life  and  of  a  rather 
melancholy  temperament.  Therefore,  he  became  an  Aris- 
totelian." This  difference  almost  led,  on  one  occasion,  to 
an  open  breach  about  answer  35  of  our  catechism.  But 
God's  grace  prevented  it.  As  Rev.  Mr.  Krafft,  of  Elberfeld, 
one  of  the  best  German  Reformed  historians  of  the  last 
century,  says :  "They  are  a  prominent  illustration  of 
the  way  in  which  God  takes  persons  of  different  char- 
acters and  gifts  and  makes  them  useful  to  the  Church." 
We  could  go  further  than  that,  and  say  that  they  reveal 


ii6  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

the  greater  value  of  the  Heidelberg,  because  in  it  the 
individual  pecularities  of  their  different  type  of  genius 
were  blended. 

But  before  we  can  take  this  up  we  must  pause  a 
moment  to  study  the  controversy  between  Ramus  and 
the  Aristotelians.  There  have  always  been  two  types  of 
thought,  which  were  only  the  reflection  of  two  different 
types  of  mind.  The  one  emphasized  the  inward,  the  other 
the  outward ;  the  one  emphasized  the  idea,  the  other  the 
\  form  of  the  idea.  These  two  types  were  called,  in  classic 
times,  the  Platonic  and  the  AristoteHan.  The  Aristotelian 
finally  gained  the  victory,  and  on  it  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  is  built.  The  scholasticism  of  the  Middle  Ages 
is  mainly  Aristotelian  dialectic  applied  to  Christian  truth. 
One  of  the  church  fathers  said  the  church  would  not  have 
had  so  many  dogmas  if  Aristotle  had  written  less.  In 
the  reformation  Luther  protested  against  Aristotle.  Mel- 
ancthon  said :  "In  Aristotelianism  one  looses  himself," 
and  yet  he  used  the  Aristotelian  methods,  though  modi- 
fied somewhat. 

Now  against  all  this  Ramus  led  the  opposition  in  his 
day.  He  claimed  that  not  merely  was  a  reformation  in 
religion  necessary,  but  also  a  reformation  in  that  which 
was  underlying  religion — namely,  in  the  very  method  of 
man's  thinking.  And  here  Ramus  was  right.  There 
was  need  of  a  new  philosophy.  For  later  Protestantism, 
by  applying  the  Aristotelian  methods  to  its  theology,  ran 
out  into  a  scholasticism  of  its  own  in  supralapsarianism 
in  the  Reformed  Church,  and  dead  orthodoxy  in  the 
Lutheran  at  end  of  sixteenth  and  beginning  of  seven- 
teenth century.  All  this  Ramus  aimed  to  prevent.  As 
Punjer  says:  "Ramus  aimed  at  vitalizing  the  purely 
formal  dialectics  of  his  time  by  connecting  them  with 
rhetoric.     He  also  proposed  giving  up  the  hair-splittings 


on-H'i-n  : 

nfy^r  :  n9"Ah  :: 

An*l  :  tiniC^T"  :  A'P¥"«I=r(D' : 
AHAA9"9°  •-  K<n»3-=r<D- : 

^■f  au^  : 


The  title-page  of  the  Heidelberg  catechism  in  the  Amharic 
language.     See  pages  14-15  and  81-35. 


PETER  RAMUS  II7 

produced  by  Aristotelianism  by  omitting  them  and  making 
logic  more  practical.  For  this  he  received  the  nickname 
of  utilitarian.  He  claimed  that  the  proper  emphasis  was 
not  on  the  form  of  the  idea  as  much  as  the  idea  itself, 
and  that  the  proper  method  was  to  go  from  idea  to  idea 
and  not  the  merely  word-for-word  method  of  Aristotle." 
Ramus,  in  all  this,  meant  well.  He  undertook  a  great 
task  when  he  determined  to  give  Christianity  a  new  phi- 
losophy, which  was,  indeed,  greatly  needed.  But  it  was 
too  great  a  task  even  for  him.  Such  a  task  required  a 
giant  mind,  a  master  mind,  which  his  lighter  Celtic  cast 
of  mind  and  his  brilliant  oratory  seem  to  have  prevented 
him  from  attaining.  So  that  there  was  an  element  of 
truth  in  the  charge  of  his  enemies  that  his  logic  had 
degenerated  into  rhetoric,*  or  that  he  taught  nothing 
new,  but  had  to  use  the  methods  of  Aristotle  in  curtailing 
Aristotle.  The  truth  is  that  it  has  taken  centuries  to  get 
a  Protestant  philosophy,  and  it  is  a  question  whether  it 
has  yet  been  found  in  a  full  comprehensive  form.  Let 
us  pause  a  moment  to  note  the  philosophies  that  have 
come  up.  Soon  after  Ramus  came  Descartes,  with  his 
philosophy  of  doubt;  then  Spinoza,  with  his  philosophy 
of  pantheism.  Bacon  came  with  his  philosophy  of  in- 
duction, a  genuine  product  of  Protestantism,  for  Cath- 
olicism would  never  have  allowed  such  freedom  of  rea- 
soning. Ramus  did  not  seem  to  have  revealed  that  deep 
sagacity  that  enabled  Bacon  and  Descartes  to  strike  at 
the  very  roots  of  the  Aristotelian  and  Romish  system, 
Kant  then  came  with  his  emphasis  on  idealism ;  Locke, 
with  his  sensualism.  Hegel  resolved  all  logic  into  thesis, 
antithesis,  synthesis.     In  our  day  evolution  has  tried  to 

*  "The  result  of  his  ratiocination  was  to  give  a  truthworthy 
appearance  to  conclusions,  which  they  did  not  possess  because 
they  were  founded  on  purely  arbitrary  premises." 


Ii8  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

make  thought  and  all  its  methods  a  development.  Phil- 
osophies have  come  and  gone.  Men  have  lived  and  died 
seeking  the  true  philosophy.  Do  you  wonder,  therefore, 
that  Ramus  failed  in  producing  a  completely  defined  sys- 
tem of  philosophy  and  logic  in  his  brief  day.  He  was  not 
the  man  to  do  it.  And  the  time  had  not  yet  come  for  it 
to  be  done.  But  one  thing  he  did  and  it  was  a  great  thing. 
For  before  human  reason  could  advance,  it  was  necessary 
that  it  be  released  from  its  fetters.  And  Ramus  shook 
Aristotelianism,  which  was  the  main  pillar  of  the  Cath- 
olic Church.  Yes,  he  shook  it  to  its  very  foundation, 
even  though,  Samson-like,  he  brought  it  down  on  his  own 
head  to  his  death.  And  his  death,  like  Samson's,  was 
the  crowning  glory  of  his  life. 

And  now,  at  last,  we  are  ready  to  look  at  the  influ- 
ence of  all  this  on  our  Heidelberg  Catechism.  It  has 
already  been  shown,  in  a  previous  chapter,  that  our 
catechism  is  largely  the  matured  result  of  other  cate- 
chisms gone  before.  We  now  see,  from  this  topic,  that 
it  is  also  the  matured  result  of  two  different  types  of 
mind.  In  Ursinus  the  analytic  method  is  prominent. 
Without  a  question  he  was  the  great  logician  of  the 
Heidelberg  faculty  in  his  day,  and  he  seems  to  have  been 
looked  upon  as  such.  One  sees  traces  of  his  Aristotelian 
methods  more  in  his  Commentary  on  the  catechism  than 
in  the  catechism  itself.  His  Commentary  on  the  catechism, 
excellent  as  it  is,  is  sometimes  cast  in  a  scholastic  mould. 
He  also,  as  is  the  general  charge  against  Aristotelians, 
went  too  far  into  the  mere  logic  of  the  thing,  often  further 
than  was  necessary.  It  is  not  for  us  to  criticize  him, — that 
was  the  philosophy  of  his  day.  In  his  earlier  life,  when 
he  composed  the  catechism,  he  shows  less  of  this  ratio- 
cinative  method.  But  we  have  his  Aristotelianism  to 
thank,  for  it  gave  the  clear  logic  to  the  catechism,  both 


PETER  RAMUS  119 

in  the  logical  connection  of  the  questions  and  the  clear 
statement  of  its  answers;  only  he  does  not  carry  it  in  its 
results  to  scholastic  extremes.  None  of  his  writings,  be- 
fore the  publication  of  our  catechism,  reveal  the  rigid 
argumentation  into  which  he  was  forced  by  the  bitter  con- 
troversies forced  on  him  by  the  Lutherans.  Then  he 
showed  his  teeth  in  logic.  We  have  him,  therefore,  to 
thank  for  the  clearness  and  logical  order  of  the  cate- 
chism. Because  of  his  analytic  mind,  nothing  extraneous 
or  illogical  was  allowed  to  enter  into  it. 

And  now  let  us  turn  to  the  other  side.  There  was 
need  of  some  curb  to  Aristotelianism.  Why  is  it  that 
the  Heidelberg  catechism  is  in  character  so  different  from 
the  Shorter  Westminster  catechism?  That  more  repre- 
sents the  scholastic  type  of  doctrine,  though,  of  course, 
not  nearly  so  much  as  Beza  and  his  supralapsarianism. 
The  reason  for  the  superiority  of  the  Heidelberg  was 
because  the  Aristotelian  methods  were  held  in  check  by 
a  utilitarianism  like  that  of  Ramus — checked  by  a  Ramist 
type  of  mind.  This  was  found  in  Olevianus,  who,  though 
not  yet  a  Ramist  when  the  catechism  was  composed,  was 
of  that  synthetic  type  of  mind,  that  as  soon  as  Ramus 
appeared  he  accepted  his  views.  We  have  a  copy  of  the 
Logic  of  Olevianus,  as  he  later  taught  it  at  the  uni- 
versity of  Herborn,  and  it  agrees  with  the  principles  of 
Ramus.  By  this  synthetic  type  of  mind  the  Heidelberg 
is  prevented  from  rambling  off  into  unnecessary  by-paths 
of  doctrine.  And,  again,  many  of  the  questions  of  the 
Heidelberg  are  utilitarian,  like  the  Ramists.  "What 
profit  does  this  doctrine  mean  to  thee?"  is  often  asked. 
We  believe  that  a  good  part  of  this  check  on  Aristotelian- 
ism was  due  to  Olevianus,  although  not  all ;  for  as  we 
have  before  said,  Ursinus  was  more  practical  in  his 
younger  days  before  controversy  roused  the  logical  dia- 


120  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

lectics,  which  he  used  with  such  power  against  the  high- 
Lutherans.  We  see  in  the  catechism  that  the  form  is 
kept  secondary  to  the  idea.  An  answer  is  never  put  in 
for  the  sake  of  the  form,  but  for  the  sake  of  the  idea 
or  truth  that  is  in  it.  One  realizes  this  when  you  com- 
pare it  with  Ursinus'  earlier  catechisms.  All  these  things 
were  emphasized  by  the  synthetic  type  of  mind  in  Ole- 
vianus,  which  later  found  expression  in  the  Ramist  phi- 
losophy. 

And  so,  finally,  Ursinus  and  Olevianus  acted  as  a  foil 
to  each  other.  They  supplemented  each  other.  They 
were  complimentary  minds.  How  fortunate  it  was,  that 
in  the  providence  of  God,  two  such  different  men  should 
be  brought  together  to  become  the  men  to  compose  the 
catechism.  The  one  balanced  the  other,  and  out  of  both 
we  have  a  poise — a  perfection  in  the  catechism,  that,  as 
has  been  well  said,  "the  writings  of  neither  give,"  or 
that  has  not  been  reached  by  any  other  catechism.  No 
wonder,  then,  that  the  Heidelberg  catechism  has  been 
popular,  and  it  ought  to  be  retained  because  of  its 
popularity. 


J 


^:)Ui  ;io  -^y*  ;yy  j.  jjl. 


The   title-page   of   the    Heidelberg  catechism    in   the    Arainc 
language.     See  page   14. 


PART  III 

THE  AUTHORS  OF  THE  CATECHISM 


A 

ELECTOR  FREDERICK  III 


CHAPTER  I 

THE   CONVERSION    OF   ELECTOR   FREDERICK   III   TO   THE 
REFORMED  FAITH 

How  and  when  did  Elector  Frederick  HI  of  the  Pa- 
latinate become  Reformed.  The  answer  to  these  ques- 
tions has  been  very  difficult  for  two  reasons: 

1.  The  different  historians  of  that  period  are  not, 
by  any  means,  in  agreement. 

2.  Frederick,  himself,  makes  it  somewhat  doubtful 
by  his  varying  expressions. 

We  propose  to  take  up  this  subject  and  carefully  fol- 
low it,  step  by  step.  The  chronological  order  of  events 
has  been  too  much  neglected  by  historians,  so  that  the 
story  has  become  largely  a  jumble  of  facts,  confusing 
to  the  reader  and  often  unjust  to  the  history.  We  pro- 
pose to  date  all  the  events  as  they  take  place,  and  thus 
we  can  follow  what  must  prove  an  important  and  inter- 
esting study,  as  we  watch  him,  step  by  step,  leave  the 
Lutheran  faith  and  become  Reformed. 

This  subject  divides  itself  into  two  main  parts: 

1.  The  reign  of  Elector  Otto  Henry  of  the  Palat- 
inate, Frederick's  predecessor. 

2.  The  early  years  of  Elector  Frederick's  reign. 

123 


124  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

I.      THE  REIGN   OF   ELECTOR   OTTO   HENRY 

We  must  first  correct  a  false  impression  that  many 
readers  of  this  history  have  gained,  because  its  historians 
have  not  kept  the  chronology  of  it  clear.  It  will  be 
somewhat  startling  to  some  to  learn  that  this  great  battle 
between  the  Lutherans  and  Reformed  in  the  Palatinate 
had  been  largely  fought  out  before  ever  Frederick  III 
comes  upon  the  scene  and  Olevianus  and  Ursinus  become 
prominent.  The  reign  of  Frederick's  predecessor,  Otto 
Henry,  was  full  of  pregnant  events  which  prepared  the 
way  for  his  transition. 

Elector  Otto  Henry  was  a  Lutheran,  but  a  Lutheran 
of  a  liberal  type, — he  was,  above  all,  a  humanistic  Lu- 
theran,— that  is,  he  was  a  humanist  more  than  a  Lutheran. 
He  was  a  devoted  Protestant,  but  he  cared  more  for 
humanism,  with  its  education  and  its  art,  than  he  did  for 
narrow  denominationalism  and  mere  confessionalism. 
Under  the  broad  and  liberal  rule  of  such  a  man,  there 
appeared  four  influences  that  prepared  the  way  for  the 
entrance  of  the  Reformed  doctrines  into  the  Palatinate. 

The  first  was  educational.  Otto  Henry's  great  aim 
was  the  enlightenment  of  his  people  by  humanism  and 
religion.  As  a  humanist  his  great  zeal  was  for  the  in- 
troduction of  art  and  education.  As  a  sign  of  his  love 
for  art,  he  added  to  the  castle  at  Heidelberg  what  was 
called  the  "Otto  Henry  Building,"  beautiful  to-day,  even 
in  its  ruined  condition.  But  it  was  education  that  he 
especially  stressed.  The  university  of  Heidelberg,  which, 
by  its  recent  change  from  Catholicism  to  Protestantism, 
had  been  in  a  lamentably  low  condition,  he  rejuvenated. 
It  had  had  few  and  mediocre  professors  and  also  few 
students,  especially  in  theology.  To  bring  it  up,  he  called 
professors  of  fame  and  ability  who  would  attract  stu- 


ELECTOR   FREDERICK'S  CONVERSION 


125 


dents.  He  said  he  would  bring  it  up  if  it  took  his  last 
cent,  and  he  did  what  his  predecessors  had  failed  to  do, 
bring  it  out  of  the  scholasticism  of  the  Middle  Ages. 
And  he  did  this  without  taking  into  consideration  whether 
the  professors  were  Lutherans.  Thus  he  tried  to  get 
Peter  Martyr  and  Wolfgang  Musculus,  both  Reformed, 
notwithstanding  that  Brenz,  the  Lutheran  reformer,  of 
Wurtemberg,  warned  him  against  mice  (Musculus)  and 
rats.  But  both  declined.  However,  a  number  of  Re- 
formed slipped  in.  Two  Reformed  professors  especially 
appeared  prominently  at  this  time.  The  first  was  Peter 
Boquin,  the  other,  Thomas  Erastus. 

Peter  Boquin  was  a  Frenchman  by  birth.  He  had 
been  a  prior  of  the  Carmelite  order  in  the  Catholic 
Church,  but  had  become  Protestant,  and  had  therefore 
been  compelled  to  flee  from  France  to  Germany.  He 
became  the  successor  of  Calvin  as  pastor  at  Strasburg. 
From  there  he  came  to  Heidelberg,  March,  1557,  and 
lectured  as  theological  professor  for  a  year  on  trial,  but 
was  so  satisfactory  that  the  next  year  he  was  made 
regular  professor.*  He  it  was,  who,  long  before  Olevianus 
and  Ursinus  came  upon  the  scene,  bore  the  brunt  of  the 
controversy  for  the  Reformed.  He  has  not,  it  seems  to  us, 
by  any  means  received  the  credit  he  should  have  received. 
Even  though  he  was  after  their  arrival  somewhat  sup- 
planted by  the  two  youths,  Ursinus  and  Olevianus  (for 
so  they  must  have  seemed  beside  this  hoary  old  professor 
of  theology),  that  should  not  cause  us  to  fail  in  giving 
him  the  credit  for  being  the  great  champion  of  the  Re- 
formed in  those  early  days.  He  it  was  who  championed 
them  in  debate,  he  it  was  who  published  book  after  book 

*  Elector  Otto  Henry  had  called  Blaarer,  the  Reformed  re- 
former of  southern  Germany,  before  Boquin  was  selected,  but  he 
declined. 


126  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

defending  them  against  the  Lutherans.  We  have  been 
collecting  his  works  and  have  been  surprised  at  his  Hterary 
activity  for  the  Reformed,  when  it  was  somewhat  dan- 
gerous to  be  outspoken  in  their  favor. 

Thomas  Erastus  was  a  Swiss  and  came  to  Heidelberg 
as  professor  of  medicine.  When  the  professorship  of 
medicine  became  vacant,  Otto  Henry  asked  his  private 
physician,  who,  among  German  physicians,  had  the 
greatest  reputation.  The  latter  replied  that  Erastus, 
who  was  at  that  time  private  physician  to  some  German 
prince,  was  the  man.  And  Otto  Henry  at  once  called 
him.  As  soon  as  he  came,  May  2,  1558,  he  became  the 
moving  spirit  of  the  whole  university,  and  was  soon,  as 
we  shall  see,  made  its  rector.  Erastus,  though  he  ex- 
celled in  medicine,  was  also  versed  in  theology.  Avoiding 
the  devious  windings  in  thought,  to  which  many  theo- 
logians are  inclined,  he  went  straight  to  the  point,  and 
both  in  debate  and  in  his  published  works,  he  went  to  the 
root  of  the  matter  with  such  great  clearness  that  it 
v/as  hard  for  his  high-Lutheran  opponents  to  answer 
him. 

Of  these  two,  Boquin  was  the  first  to  become  promi- 
nent for  the  Reformed.  Besides  these  two  Reformed 
professors.  Otto  Henry  placed  other  Reformed  pro- 
fessors in  the  dififerent  departments  of  the  university. 
To  these  might  be  added  a  member  of  the  court,  its  sec- 
retary, Cirler,  who,  as  early  as  1556,  was  named  "the 
great  Zwinglian."  So  that  when  Frederick  took  the 
rule,  there  were  quite  a  number  of  them  there. 

The  second  preparatory  influence  under  Otto  Henry 
was  political.  Broad-minded  prince  that  he  was,  he  ad- 
mitted into  his  realm  persons  of  other  faiths  than  Lu- 
theran. Of  special  significance  was  his  permission  to 
the  Reformed  refugees  from  Frankford  to  settle  in  the 


KERESZTYEN 

CATECHISMrS, 

AZAZ: 

A'  KERESZTYENI  HITNEK 

AGAZATIRA 

KERDESEK  ES  FELELETEK  ALTAI. 

VALO 

ROVID  TANITAS, 


'  Kerdesek  es  Feleletek  sumraas  ertelmek- 
kel ,  es  az  a^okban  foglnltalutt  dolgokat 
felfejtegeto  kerdezkcdeseUliel,  's  nemely 
sziikseges  magyaruzatokkal ,  a'  Szent  Iras- 
beli  Bizunysagoknak  cgeszcn  valo  leirasa- 
Talj  Tcgre  a' Catcchizalasra  valo  hasanot 
tltmutalassal 

EZ  VJ  FORMABAN 

IdBOCSATTiTOTT. 


NYOMATOTT  DEBRECZENBEN, 
18  4  4. 

The  title-page  of  the  Heidelberg  catechism  in  the  Hungarian 
language.     See  pages  17-18. 


ELECTOR   FREDERICK'S  CONVERSION 


127 


town  of  Frankenthal.  He  permitted  this^  notwithstand- 
ing that  Melancthon  in  1555  expressed  the  fear  that 
the  introduction  of  refugees  of  a  different  faith  from 
Lutheranism  would  probably  lead  to  friction,  a  prophecy 
which  came  true  in  Otto  Henry's  life  just  before  he 
died,  as  the  high-Lutherans  began  bitterly  attacking  the 
Reformed. 

A  third  preparatory  influence  was  the  liturgical.  ^ 
The  Lutherans  of  Germany  have  always  been  mainly 
of  two  kinds.  North  Germany  was  high,  south  Ger- 
many was  low.  This  was  because  parts  of  south  Ger- 
many had  been  converted  from  Catholicism  by  the  Re- 
formed. Otto  Henry  was  a  south  German  and  he  re- 
vealed his  low-Lutheran  tendency  by  ordering  certain 
reforms  in  the  cultus,  which  made  the  worship  more 
like  the  Reformed  in  its  simplicity.  In  his  Church 
Order  of  1556,  he  leaves  out  the  rite  of  exorcism,  or 
blowing  away  of  the  devil,  common  among  the  northern 
Lutherans,  even  though  he  had  had  it  in  his  previous 
Church  Order  of  Pfalz-Neuburg.  He  ordered  the  altars 
out  of  the  churches,  all  except  the  main  altar,  which 
he  left,  so  that  there  would  be  an  altar  for  the  celebra- 
tion of  the  Lord's  Supper.  A  reform  that  created  the 
most  sensation,  was  his  order  that  pictures  should  be 
removed  from  the  churches.  This  met  with  so  much 
opposition,  that  it  was  only  partially  carried  out.  In- 
deed, Otto  Henry  found  it  necessary  on  one  occasion, 
in  order  to  prevent  disorder,  to  appear  personally  when 
the  pictures  were  taken  out  of  the  Holy  Ghost  Church 
at  Heidelberg,  and  declare  to  the  people  that  they  would 
not  be  cast  out  of  the  other  churches.  In  all  this  he 
was  not  going  beyond  Lutheranism,  for  his  neighbor, 
the  Duke  of  Wurtemberg,  was  against  altars  and  idola- 
trous pictures  in  the  churches,  and  his  Lutheranism  was 


128  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

never  impugned.  But  all  these  things  only  prepared 
the  way  for  Frederick.  Because  of  it,  when  the  latter 
began  his  reforms  to  make  the  churches  Reformed,  it 
did  not  provoke  so  much  opposition  as  it  would  have 
done. 

A  fourth  preparatory  influence  was  personal.  There 
is  no  great  theological  controversy  that  does  not  have 
personalities  connected  with  it  in  some  way  or  other. 
And  sometimes  controversies  degenerate  into  mere  per- 
sonalities. But  in  this  controversy  great  principles  were 
at  stake.  However,  personalities  entered  very  largely 
into  it. 

The  two  leaders  in  the  personal  controversy  were 
Hesshuss  and  Klebitz.  Tileman  Hesshuss  was  a  high- 
Lutheran  zealot,  who  came  to  Heidelberg  in  1557,  as 
professor  of  theology  and  superintendent  or  head  of 
the  Church  of  the  Palatinate.  Of  a  domineering,  am- 
bitious disposition  he  was  admirably  suited  to  provoke 
friction.  Finding  so  many  Reformed  in  the  Palatinate, 
he  felt  himself  called  upon  to  rid  the  Palatinate  of  them 
and  make  it  strictly  Lutheran.  In  a  word,  he  sought  to 
be  the  Lutheran  Reformer  of  the  Palatinate !  On  the 
other  hand,  William  Klebitz,  a  Reformed,  was  just  the 
one  to  nettle  a  man  like  Hesshuss,  for  he  was  self-as- 
sertive, if  attacked,  and  the  over-zealousness  of  youth 
led  him  sometimes  to  overstep  the  bounds  of  propriety. 
He  was  an  assistant  preacher  at  the  Holy  Ghost  Church 
at  Heidelberg.  As  we  now  take  up  these  quarrels  be- 
tween this  ultra-Lutheran  and  this  zealous  Reformed,  it 
is  to  be  noticed  that  many  of  the  quarrels  either  took 
place  or  had  their  beginning  in  Otto  Henry's  time,  be- 
fore ever  Frederick  appeared  at  Heidelberg. 

The  first  outbreak  occurred  in  1558,  in  regard  to  a 
beautiful  marble  monument  that  Otto  Henry  had  erected 


ELECTOR   FREDERICK'S  CONVERSION        129 

in  the  choir  of  the  Holy  Ghost  Church  at  Heidelberg, 
as  a  memorial  to  himself,  for  he  was  childless.  This 
monument  was  after  the  fashion  of  humanism,  which 
combined  classical  with  scriptural  figures.  It  had  on  it 
angels  and  seven  virgins  rather  naked.  Otto  Henry  had 
first  consulted  Hesshuss,  who  approved  his  monument. 
He  told  the  Elector  he  was  but  following  the  example  of 
other  kings  and  princes.  Hesshuss  also  favored  it  because 
is  was  against  the  Reformed  ideas  of  simplicity  in  the 
church  buildings.  But  when  the  Elector  asked  the  other 
ministers,  Flinner  opposed  it,  because  it  was  placed  in  the 
choir  of  the  Holy  Ghost  Church  just  where  the  com- 
municants would  receive  the  Lord's  supper.  And  besides, 
it  was  inconsistent  with  Otto  Henry's  recent  action  in 
having  the  pictures  put  out  of  the  church.  Otto  Henry 
found  that  several  other  of  the  ministers,  among  them, 
Klebitz,  took  offence  at  the  monument.  So  he  had  the 
naked  figures  removed.  Hesshuss  took  great  offence  at 
all  this,  and  as  Flinner  soon  after  left  for  Strasburg,  he 
took  out  his  revenge  on  Klebitz.  This  was  the  beginning 
of  the  quarrel  that  was  to  make  the  Palatinate  ultimately 
Reformed. 

The  second  controversy  was  about  the  cultus.  Kleb- 
itz, angered  at  Hesshuss'  attacks,  retorted  by  bringing 
charges  against  the  high-Lutheran  innovations  of  Hess- 
huss. Hesshuss  was  so  intense  in  his  devotion  to,  yes, 
almost  worship  of,  Luther,  that  when  the  Elector  wanted 
a  new  hymnbook  prepared,  like  the  Bonn  hymnbook, 
which  contained  hymns  by  other  reformers,  as  Melanc- 
thon  and  Bucer,  Hesshuss  wanted  only  Luther's  hymns 
in  it.  He  opposed  Psalmns  because  they  were  used 
by  the  Reformed.  Hesshuss  also  introduced  Latin 
singing  by  the  school  children,  instead  of  German. 
He  also  introduced  some  new  high  church  ceremonies 


130 


THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 


at  the  Lord's  Supper.  Thus  he  showed  superstitious 
reverence  for  the  elements :  he  had  a  napkin  held 
under  the  wafer  so  that  none  of  it  should  fall  on 
the  floor.  That  part  of  the  bread  and  wine  left  over 
from  communion  he  treated  as  especially  sacred.  And 
when  it  happened  that  he  had  not  consecrated  enough 
of  the  elements,  he  went  all  over  the  form  of  consecra- 
tion again.  He  also,  at  the  communion,  turned  his  back 
on  the  congregation  while  in  prayer,  thus  acting  as  if  he 
were  a  priest.  Again,  the  low-Lutheran  catechism  of 
Brenz,  which  had  been  commonly  used  in  the  Palatinate, 
Hesshuss  wanted  to  have  set  aside  and  Luther's  cate- 
chism used  in  its  stead. 

The  third  incident  was  the  case  of  Hexamer.  He 
had  been  pastor  of  the  church  at  Edenkoben,  and  in 
the  church  visitation  of  1556  had  been  charged  with 
Zwinglianism  and  Schwenkfelderism.  The  case  hung 
fire  until  it  wag  called  before  the  consistory,  November 
8,  1558,  and  he  was  examined.  The  report  on  the  case 
drawn  up  by  Hesshuss.  Diller,  the  low-Lutheran  court 
preacher  of  the  Elector,  and  Klebitz  refused  to  sign  it, 
because  it  contained  some  things  extraneous  to  the  case, 
and  especially  because  of  its  denunciation  of  Zwingli  and 
Calvin.  This  refusal  greatly  angered  such  an  autocat  as 
Hesshuss,  and  he  charged  Klebitz  with  Zwinglianism  and 
Osiandrianism.  As  a  result,  the  Elector  ordered  both 
Hesshuss  and  Klebitz  to  bring  to  him  a  confession  of 
their  faith,  which  each  did  at  the  end  of  1558. 

Finally  came  the  last  incident  which  began  just  two 
weeks  before  the  death  of  Elector  Otto  Henry  (which 
occurred  February  12,  1559),  and  was  not  settled  till 
after  his  death.  A  scholar  from  Groningen,  Holland, 
named  Sylvius,  wanted  to  get  a  degree  of  doctor  from 
the   university   of   Heidelberg.     Hesshuss,   at   that   time 


EL 

O^TECISMO 

DE 

HEIDELBERG 

rOBLICADO   POR   JUAN   AVENTROT 

EN     1628 

AnORA  riEMENTE  REIMPRESO. 


MADRID. 

LIBBERIA  NACIONAL  Y  EXTEANJERA 
59.     Jacometrezo    59. 

1885. 

The   title-page   of   the   Heidelberg  catechism   in   the   Spanish 
language.     See  pages  21 -'U. 


ELECTOR   FREDERICK'S  CONVERSION        131 

dekan  or  head  of  the  theological  faculty,  tried  to  pre- 
vent Sylvius  from  getting  an  opportunity.  He  vi^as  es- 
pecially offended  with  Sylvius'  theses  for  the  doctorate. 
He  wanted  Sylvius  to  include  in  them  denunciations  of 
the  Zwinglians.  But  Sylvius  declared  such  things  were 
out  of  place  in  a  scientific  treatise.  So  Hesshuss  charged 
Sylvius  with  heresy,  with  being  a  Zwinglian.  But  Syl- 
vius found  a  defender  in  Boquin,  and  also  in  Erastus, 
who  was  at  that  time  rector  of  the  university. 

Hesshuss  appealed  to  the  Elector  against  granting  the 
degree.  But  the  university  asked  that  it  be  sent  back 
to  the  university  senate.  So  Hesshuss  attacked  the  uni- 
versity in  the  severest  and  most  abusive  terms.  Before 
the  councilors  of  the  Elector  he  raged  against  "the  phy- 
sicians and  lawyers  of  the  faculty,  who,  he  said,  studied 
the  Bible  very  little,  went  to  Church  and  the  sacra- 
ments seldom,  and  who  had  not  even  seen  the  Augsburg 
Confession."  He  also  attacked  Klebitz,  who  happened 
to  be  Sylvius'  special  friend.  All  this  thoroughly 
roused  the  university,  and  they  gave  Sylvius  the  degree  in 
March,  1559,  about  a  month  after  Otto  Henry  had  died. 
This  was  the  more  remarkable,  for  at  that  time  uni- 
versities were  strictly  denominational.  No  Lutheran 
university  gave  a  degree  to  a  Reformed  or  on  the  basis 
of  Reformed  theses,  and  vice  versa.  That  Heidelberg, 
a  Lutheran  university,  should  do  so  to  a  Reformed,  and 
allow  Reformed  theses  to  be  approved,  was  an  un- 
heard of  thing,  Hesshuss  was  right  as  to  the  custom 
in  the  past.  This  giving  of  the  degree  to  a  Reformed 
was  then  looked  upon  as  committing  the  university  in 
that  direction. 

The  university  no  longer  invited  Hesshuss  to  the 
sessions  of  the  university  senate.  For  Hesshuss  had  de- 
clared that  the  degree  of  doctor,  which  they  had  given 


132  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

Sylvius,  was  not  worth  three  dollars,  as  they  had  given 
it  to  a  blasphemer.  Only  the  departure  of  Hesshuss  for 
Wesel,  his  early  home,  on  matters  of  family  business, 
made  an  end  for  the  time  to  these  alarming  polemics. 

II.    The  Eari^y  Years  of  EivEctor  Frederick  III 

A.      THE  YEAR   1559. 

Such  was  the  state  of  affairs  when  Elector  Frederick 
III  came  to  the  throne  (February  28,  1559),  about  two 
weeks  after  the  death  of  Otto  Henry.*  It  was  very 
evident  that  he  had  a  severe  problem  on  his  hands, 
for  his  court,  university  and  churches  were  divided 
into  three  parties.  Hesshuss  led  the  high-Lutherans 
and  was  supported  by  a  number  of  ministers,  and  by 
two  prominent  members  of  the  court.  Chancellor  Mink- 
witz  and  Judge  von  Benningen.  The  Melancthonians 
were  led  by  the  peaceful  Diller,  the  court-preacher,  and 
Count  George  of  Erbach,  both  of  whom  desired  to 
mediate  things  so  that  there  should  be  peace.  The  Re- 
formed were  led  by  Boquin  as  professor  of  theology, 
and  Erastus,  the  head  of  the  university,  and  also  sup- 
ported by  a  number  of  other  professors  in  other  de- 
partments of  the  university.  In  the  court  they  found 
strong  support  in  the  other  two  Counts  of  Erbach,  in 
Cirler,  the  secretary  of  the  court,  and  especially  in  Zule- 
ger,  a  Bohemian,  who  was  soon  made  the  head  of  the 
consistory.     The  high-handed  domineering  and  abuse  of 

*One  of  the  Lutheran  princes  declared  that  he  had  pro- 
tested to  Otto  Henry,  not  long  before  his  death,  against  his  ap- 
pointment of  so  many  Reformed,  and  that  Otto  Henry  had  de- 
clared to  him  that  he  would  dismiss  those  that  were  in  the 
university  and  court.  But  his  death  intervened  too  quickly  for 
anything  to  be  done. 


ELECTOR   FREDERICK'S  CONVERSION        133 

Hesshuss  had  been  driving  the  last  two  parties,  the  Me- 
lancthonians  and  the  Reformed,  together  against  him 
and  against  the  narrowness  of  the  high-Lutherans. 

The  all  important  question  was,  with  which  one  of 
these  three  parties  would  Elector  Frederick  III  ally  him- 
self, for  the  law  of  Germany  was  "Cujus  regio,  ejus 
religio,"  that  meant  "as  was  the  religion  of  the  prince, 
so  was  the  religion  of  the  people."  Frederick  was  a 
Lutheran,  having  been  converted  from  Catholicism  to  it 
by  his  wife.  And  there  were  at  that  time  several  strong 
influences  very  close  to  him  to  make  him  a  high-Lutheran. 
His  wife  was  an  intense  high-Lutheran,  and,  as  she  shows 
in  her  letters,  warned  him  against  the  subtle  influence  of 
Zwinglianism  at  Heidelberg.  His  son-in-law,  Duke  John 
Frederick  of  Saxony,  was  the  leader  of  the  high-Lu- 
therans of  Germany.  The  latter  wrote  to  Frederick 
when  he  ascended  the  throne  at  Heidelberg  that  he  hoped 
he  would  root  out  the  Zwinglianism  and  Calvinism,*  which 
his  predecessor  had  allowed  to  enter  the  Palatinate. 
Frederick  replied,  declaring  himself  as  against  the 
sects  (the  Zwinglians,  which  were  usually  included  by 
the  Lutherans  in  that  word),  but  he  did  not  think  it 
right  to  condemn  them  unheard,  as  even  the  worst 
criminals  were  accorded  a  hearing.  In  this  we  get  a 
glimpse  of  Frederick's  great  fairness  of  mind  and  also 
his  freedom  from  narrowness. 

And  yet,  while  he  was  a  Lutheran,  he  was  a  low- 
Lutheran  or  Melancthonian.  For  at  the  Frankford  re- 
cess of  1558,  he  had  signed  the  formula  drawn  up,  which 
was  low-Lutheran.  And  he  had  signed  the  Altered  Augs- 
burg Confession,  which  was  the  symbol  of  the  Melanc- 
thonians.  The  first  Augsburg  Confession  of  1530  was 
high-Lutheran.      The  Altered   Augsburg   Confession   of 

*  Which  he  called  "devil's  dung." 


134  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

1540  was  low-Lutheran.  The  first  declared  in  its  ar- 
ticle on  the  Lord's  Supper  that  the  body  of  Christ  was 
distributed  at  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  latter  that  it  was 
only  exhibited  at  the  Lord's  Supper.*  Frederick  had  thus 
accepted  these  low-Lutheran  creeds.  But  there  was  noth- 
ing un-Lutheran  in  that,  for  so  had  at  that  time  all  the 
Lutheran  princes  of  Germany,  only  one  or  two  objecting 
to  them  as  not  high  enough. 

And  in  addition  to  this,  Frederick  had  been  an  irenic 
Lutheran.  This  is  shown  by  an  incident  that  occurred 
just  after  he  became  Elector.  Gallus  had,  January  7, 
1559,  sent  him  from  Ratisbon,  an  intensely  Lutheran 
book  full  of  attacks  on  the  Reformed.  Frederick,  when 
he  found  out  its  character,  did  not  read  it,  and  bade 
him  cease  from  all  such  strife.  What  Frederick  most 
desired  was  peace,  and  this  is  to  be  especially  noted  as 
the  key  to  all  his  later  acts.  He  wanted  that  even  more 
than  he  did  Lutheranism.  Therefore,  with  any  Luther- 
anism  that  spent  itself  in  mere  polemics,  he  was  entirely 
cmt  of  sympathy.  In  doing  so,  he  was  only  following 
his  predecessor.  Otto  Henry,  who,  at  the  colloquy 
at  Worms,  1557,  had  taken  the  position  that  Zwinglianism 
and  the  sects  ought  not  to  be  condemned  unheard.  And 
there  was  an  especial  reason  why  Frederick  wanted 
unity  and  peace  just  at  that  time.  The  Catholics  had  all 
become  united  again  at  the  Council  of  Trent.  And  Fred- 
erick felt  that  the  most  important  thing  for  Protestantism 

*  In  the  first,  the  article  on  the  Lord's  Supper  read  thus : 
"Concerning  the  Lord's  Supper,  they  teach  that  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  are  truly  present  and  are  distributed  to  those 
who  eat  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  they  disapprove  of  those  who 
teach  otherwise."  In  the  latter,  it  read :  "Concerning  the  Lord's 
Supper,  they  teach  that  with  the  bread  and  wine  are  truly  ex- 
hibited the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  to  those  who  eat  of  the 
Lord's  Supper. 


ELECTOR   FREDERICK'S   CONVERSION        135 

to  do  was  to  get  together  and  present  an  unbroken  front 
to  Catholicism.  So  that  the  keynote  of  his  Hfe  was  unity 
and  peace,  even  before  Lutheranism.  And  his  irenic 
disposition  had  been  broadening  out,  for  his  sympathy 
had  already  gone  out  to  other  faiths  as  the  Reformed, 
especially  in  France.  There  is  no  truth,  says  Kluck- 
hohn,  his  biographer,  that  he  had  had  a  French  pension. 
But  he  evidently  had  already  been  impressed  by  the  edu- 
cation of  the  French,  for  he  had  before  this  sent  his 
oldest  son  to  France,  at  the  university  of  Bourges,  where 
Olevianus  had  tried  to  save  him  from  death  by  drowning, 
but  in  vain.  And  his  third  son,  John  Casimir,  he  had 
sent  to  the  French  court,  where  he  remained  until  Fred- 
erick ascended  the  throne  at  Heidelberg.  As  these  boys 
were  Protestant,  they  would  there  come  into  contact 
with  the  Reformed.  As  a  result,  Frederick  had  his 
sympathies  early  enlisted  in  the  sufferings  of  the  Hugue- 
nots. But  still  Frederick  was  a  Lutheran  at  his  acces- 
sion, and  this  he  shows  by  one  of  his  earliest  acts.  A 
month  after  it,  he  called  Lutheran  ministers  to  fill  va- 
cant parishes.  And  a  little  later  he  called  a  Lutheran, 
Einhorn,  as  professor  of  theology  in  the  university. 

But  Frederick  soon  left  Heidelberg.  Having  at- 
tended to  the  most  necessary  affairs,  he  went  in  June  to 
Ratisbon  to  be  publicly  invested  with  the  Electorate. 
But  before  doing  so,  he  laid  the  theses,  which  Hesshuss 
and  Klebitz  had  handed  in  at  the  end  of  1558,  before 
his  theologians  for  examination.  He  then  imposed 
silence  on  both.  At  Ratisbon  the  strongest  kind  of  in- 
fluence was  brought  to  bear  on  him  to  become  high- 
Lutheran.  Indeed  a  rumor  went  abroad  on  account  of 
a  careless  remark  of  his  about  his  son-in-law,  John  Fred- 
erick, that  he  was  inclining  there  to  high-Lutheranism. 
This  greatly  alarmed  the  low-Lutherans  or  Melancthon- 


136  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

ians.  But  the  rumor  proved  groundless,  for  there,  as 
everywhere  else,  he  emphasized  the  necessity  of  union 
on  the  part  of  the  Protestants  over  against  the  Catholics. 
His  hope  was,  that  the  time  would  soon  come  when  the 
theological  strifes  among  Protestants  would  cease.  But 
this  was  not  to  be  fulfilled,  for  he  found  its  opposite 
true  when  he  returned  to  Heidelberg  at  the  end  of 
August. 

For,  during  his  absence,  the  controversy  between 
Hesshuss  and  Klebitz,  had,  in  spite  of  his  prohibition, 
broken  out  with  greater  bitterness  than  ever.  While 
Hesshuss  was  away  at  Wesel,  Klebitz  had  seized  the  op- 
portunity to  offer  theses  to  the  university,  so  as  to  get  a 
bachelor's  degree  in  theology.  For,  says  the  historian 
Seisen,  Klebitz,  taking  cognizance  of  Hesshuss'  first  de- 
feat in  the  Sylvius'  case;  in  order  to  make  himself  safer, 
sought  thus  to  be  made  a  member  of  the  university.  His 
theses,  which  were  presented  April  4,  were  a  defense 
of  the  Reformed  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  by 
April  15  he  had  received  the  degree  from  the  university. 
When  Hesshuss  returned,  he  attacked  Klebitz  and  his  fol- 
lowers from  the  pulpit.  Then  he  called  Klebitz  before 
him  to  give  answer  for  what  he  had  done.  Klebitz  asked 
him  to  show  him  his  errors  and  teach  him  better.  Kleb- 
itz then  enlarged  his  theses  and  gave  them  to  him,  so 
that  he  might  show  him  his  errors.  But  Hesshuss, 
though  often  asked  by  Klebitz  for  a  reply,  avoided  it. 
He  sought  to  injure  him  by  spreading  the  matter  abroad. 
For  he  sent  the  theses  to  Moerlin  and  Stoessel,  the  high- 
Lutheran  theologians  of  the  Duke  of  Saxony,  that  they 
might  condemn  them.  He  wanted  the  university  to  pub- 
licly recall  the  degree,  and  they  did  not  do  so.  As  the 
university,  by  giving  the  degree,  had  given  Klebitz  the 
right  to  deliver  lectures,  Hesshuss,  lest  Klebitz  would 


ELECTOR   FREDERICK'S  CONVERSION        137 

fill  the  Palatinate  with  his  heresies,  was  the  more  alarmed. 
And  when  the  university  would  not  withdraw  the  per- 
mission, he  denounced  it  as  "a  hellish,  devilish,  cruel, 
cursed  and  terrible  thing."  He  also  railed  against 
Klebitz  from  the  pulpit,  as  a  Zwinglian  and  an  Arian.* 

Klebitz,  with  his  youthful  impetuosity,  was  not  the 
one  to  refuse  to  reply.  And  so  this  controversy  broke 
out  into  a  tremendous  blaze  during  Frederick's  absence. 
For  not  merely  were  Hesshuss  and  Klebitz  attacking  each 
other  from  the  pulpit,  but  the  other  ministers  began 
taking  sides  and  preaching  polemics,  and  the  strife 
threatened  to  spread  out  among  the  people,  most  of  whom 
were  against  Klebitz. 

The  Elector  had  left  as  his  governor  in  his  absence 
the  mild  Count  George  of  Erbach,  a  Melancthonian,  who 
greatly  wanted  peace.  As  he  feared  that  the  strife 
might  lead  to  riots  among  the  people,  he  called  all  the 
ministers,  including  Hesshuss  and  Klebitz,  before  him, 
August  4,  1559.  He  declared  that  Hesshuss  ought  not 
to  send  Klebitz'  theses  to  other  lands,  and,  with  tears  in 
his  eyes,  ordered  them  both  to  keep  quiet  in  the  pulpit 
until  the  Elector's  return.  But  even  in  the  presence  of 
the  Count  there  was  an  outburst  of  this  strife.  Hesshuss 
claimed  the  right  not  only  to  shut  out  an  assistant,  Kleb- 
itz, from  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  because  he 
said  he  was  not  true  to  its  doctrine.  But  he  also  threat- 
ened the  Count  with  the  ban  and  also  threatened  to 
censure  the  court  preacher,  Diller,  who  had  roused  his 
aversion  by  his  defence  of  the  Frankford  Recess.  And 
W'hen  the  Count  asked  if  he  believed,  like  the  book  of 

*  Indeed,  one  writer  says  he  so  thundered  against  him,  us- 
ing so  often  the  name  of  the  devil,  that  one  could  almost  im- 
agine they  could  hear  in  his  sermon  the  rushing  of  thousands 
of  devils. 


138  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

the  Cardinal  of  Augsburg,  that  the  body  of  our  Lord 
was  received  at  the  Lord's  Supper  "with  the  mouth  and 
stomach,"  he  replied,  "with  the  mouth  and  the  heart, 
you  are  both  Zwinglians."  Indeed,  some  historians,  as 
Hausser,  say  that  he  put  the  ban  on  the  Count  of  Erbach. 
For  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  use  of  the  ban 
was  not  new  to  Hesshuss.  He,  in  his  domineering  way 
as  a  Protestant  pope,  had  already  made  use  of  the  ban 
in  other  cities.  Thus  he  had  already  excommunicated 
two  burgomasters  in  the  city  of  Rostock  two  years  be- 
fore, and  for  it  he  had  to  leave  the  city.  He  now  pro- 
posed to  do  the  same  thing  here.  His  accusation  of  the 
Count  as  not  a  true  Lutheran,  produced  such  a  sensa- 
tion that  the  Count  felt  it  necessary  to  prepare  a  con- 
fession of  his  faith,  so  as  to  show  the  people  that  he  was 
truly  Lutheran.  This  he  published  after  having  had  it 
approved  by  Melancthon  and  other  theologians.  It  agreed 
with  the  Altered  Augsburg  Confession. 

Such  was  the  state  of  things  when  the  Elector  came 
back  from  Ratisbon  at  the  end  of  August.  The  Elector 
then  called  Hesshuss  and  Klebitz  before  him.  He 
asked  them  to  cease  the  controversy  until  he  could  submit 
the  case  to  his  own  theologians  and  those  of  other  lands. 
He  asked  each  of  them  to  give  him  a  confession  of  their 
belief.  Klebitz  submitted  his  confession,  which  was 
openly  Reformed  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  that  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  were  received  spiritually,  not  corporeally, 
only  by  faith  and  not  received  by  unbelievers.  Hesshuss, 
on  September  i,  submitted  a  confession  which  was  high- 
Lutheran,  holding  that  Christ  was  bodily  present  in  the 
elements  and  that  His  body  was  received  with  the  mouth, 
and  not  merely  by  believers,  but  by  unbelievers.  Both 
agreed  to  keep  quiet,  but  Hesshuss  was  not  the  one  to  do 
so.     On  Sunday,  August  29,  he  attacked  Klebitz  in  a 


ELECTOR  FREDERICK'S  CONVERSION        139 

sermon  and  went  so  far  as  to  forbid  him  from  perform- 
ing ministerial  duties.  On  September  3,  a  week-day, 
Klebitz  replied  in  a  sermon,  defending  himself  against 
Hesshuss'  attacks.  Hesshuss  replied  on  September  6,  when 
preaching  in  the  Holy  Ghost  Church  at  Heidelberg.  He 
then  put  Klebitz  under  the  ban.  The  ban  was  very 
severe, — "No  church  official  was  to  have  anything  to  do 
with  him,  no  one  was  to  receive  the  sacraments  from 
him  or  to  attend  his  preaching.  No  sick  were  to  send 
for  him  to  comfort  them,  no  one  was  to  eat  with  him." 
Hesshuss  did  this  so  that  Klebitz  would  be  sent  away  by 
the  authorities.  It  is  said  that  while  he  was  under  the 
ban,  one  of  his  children  died  and  he  had  difficulty  in  get- 
ting it  buried.  Two  days  later,  two  other  ministers, 
Velsius  and  Neser,  took  part  in  this  controversy  from 
the  pulpit.  The  one  put  Hesshuss  under  the  ban,  the  other 
called  him  "a  boar  who  ravaged  the  Lord's  vineyard." 
It  was  very  evident  that  matters  had  come  to  a  crisis. 
So  Frederick  called  both  Hesshuss  and  Klebitz,  together 
with  the  other  ministers,  before  him  on  September  9. 
He  threatened  them  with  dismissal  if  the  controversy 
was  continued.  He  lifted  the  ban  from  Klebitz  and 
tried  to  make  peace  by  ordering  them  at  the  Lord's 
Supper  to  use  the  words  of  the  Augsburg  Confession. 
For  one  of  the  great  questions  in  controversy  at  that 
time  was  the  exact  formula  to  be  used  at  the  Lord's 
Supper.  The  Lutheran  Church  has  always  made  the 
words  of  the  Bible  used  at  the  Lord's  Supper  the  centre 
of  the  whole  rite.  It  was  therefore  very  important  to 
them  that  exactly  the  right  words  should  be  used.  But 
there  was  great  difference  of  opinion  among  them. 
Some  wanted  the  phrase  m  the  bread,  others,  under 
the  bread,  others,  in  zvith  and  under  and  others  in  addi- 
tion to  this,  all  around  the  bread,  until  some  of  them 


140  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

neared  the  Catholic  statement  that  the  priest  holds  the 
body  of  Christ  in  his  hand.  So  the  proper  formula  to  be 
used  was  important,  and  Frederick  tried  to  solve  it  by 
ordering  the  use  of  the  phrase  in  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion, which  ought  to  have  satisfied  all  of  the  Lutherans. 

And  just  here  we  may  pause  to  note  what  is  very  im- 
portant in  this  study  of  Frederick's  conversion,  that  the 
first  method  adopted  by  Frederick,  in  order  to  produce 
unity,  was  the  use  of  a  formula  on  the  Lord's  Supper. 
Frederick  tried  four  methods  of  harmonizing  his  church 
of  the  Palatinate, — first,  a  formula  (1559);  second,  a 
conference;  third,  the  dismissal  of  the  polemists  (1560), 
and  fourth,  a  catechism  (1563).  It  is  well  to  remember 
these  dififerent  steps  as  this  history  proceeds. 

But  Hesshuss  was  not  the  man  to  be  bound  by  a 
formula,  especially  such  a  one  as  was  in  the  Altered 
Augsburg  Confession,  which,  he  declared,  was  so  broad 
that  it  could  include  the  Reformed.  So,  when  he,  some 
time  later,  administered  the  Lord's  Supper,  he  used  an- 
other form,  a  Latin  one,  that  better  suited  his  high- 
Lutheran  views.  When  the  Elector  called  him  before 
him  for  doing  so,  he  plumply  declared  he  would  not  use 
the  formula  appointed  by  the  Elector, 

The  Elector  having  supposed  that  he  had  brought 
about  peace,  on  the  next  day,  September  10,  his  court- 
preacher,  Diller,  in  preaching  at  the  Sunday  service  in 
the  Holy  Ghost  Church,  described  what  had  taken  place 
and  announced  from  the  pulpit  that  peace  was  now  made, 
that  the  formula  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  would  be 
used  at  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  that  the  causes  of  the 
strife  had  been  set  aside  until  a  synod  could  meet.  And 
after  that,  the  Elector  and  the  whole  court  went  to  the 
Lord's  Supper.  It  was  celebrated  after  this  formula, 
Diller  giving  the  bread  and  Klebitz  the  wine.     It  was,  as 


ELECTOR   FREDERICK'S  CONVERSION 


141 


one  writer  calls  it,  a  peace-festival.  But  it  did  not  last. 
That  very  Sunday  afternoon  the  war  began  again.  For 
one  of  the  ministers,  Blasius,  preached  against  Klebitz  as 
a  false  prophet,  and  three  days  later  Hesshuss  preached 
in  the  same  strain.  He  openly  charged  the  Elector  with 
having  fallen  away  from  the  Augsburg  Confession.  He 
now,  for  the  first  time,  called  attention  to  the  difference 
between  the  two  Augsburg  Confessions.  He  spoke 
against  the  Altered  Augsburg  Confession  as  so  indefinite 
in  its  statement  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  that  it  was  nothing 
but  "a  Polish  boot  and  a  broad  mantle,  under  which 
anything  could  hide,  yes,  Christ  and  the  devil  could  con- 
veniently hide  together  under  it."  The  Elector's  order 
for  peace  he  called,  "a  godless  agreement."  In  doing 
this,  he  did  not  stand  alone,  but  two  of  the  ministers 
stood  with  him.  Thus,  on  September  15,  Neser  refuted 
Diller's  sermon  of  the  previous  Sunday  and  attacked 
Klebitz  as  a  heretic  who  ought  to  be  dismissed.  Klebitz's 
patience  ran  out  at  all  this  abuse.  And  it  is  said  that  as 
Neser  went  out  of  the  church,  Klebitz  seized  him  and,  it 
is  said,  shook  him  and  called  him  a  liar.  And  Neser 
goes  so  far  as  to  charge  him  with  having  thrown  a 
large  stone  at  him.  The  report  of  Frederick  says  he 
only  caused  a  public  excitement  in  the  market.  For  it 
must  be  remembered  that  while  Hesshuss  was  the  ag- 
gressor in  this  controversy,  and  the  more  blameworthy, 
yet  Klebitz  was  not  entirely  free  from  blame  even 
though  we  as  Reformed  can  not  help  sympathizing  with 
his  theological  views.  Indeed,  Klebitz  seems  to  have  been 
there  so  judged  by  the  more  conservative  Reformed. 
Thus,  Erastus  in  writing  to  Hardenberg,  describes  Kle- 
bitz unfavorably,  but  speaks  well  of  his  preaching  ability. 
Hesshuss  erred  in  exaggerating  his  authority  and  in  mak- 
ing himself  a  Protestant  pope,      Klebitz   erred   in   the 


142  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

over-impetuosity  of  youth. 

Matters  had  now  come  to  a  pass  when  they  were 
unendurable.  So  the  Elector  called  both  Hesshuss  and 
Klebitz  before  him  on  Saturday,  September  i6,  and  dis- 
missed them  both,  in  the  hope  that  the  controversy 
would  now  cease,  as  its  leaders  were  sent  away.  How- 
ever, a  difference  in  his  treatment  of  these  two  men  is 
to  be  noticed.  Nothwithstanding  Hesshuss'  public  denunci- 
ation of  him,  he  gave  him  a  half  year's  salary  ahead, 
but  he  did  not  give  him  a  testimonial  of  approval,  which 
Hesshuss  wanted.  Klebitz,  however,  received  a  good 
testimonial  from  the  university  and  also  money  for  his 
journey,  and  the  Elector's  assurance  that  he  would  care 
for  his  family  while  he  was  away.  Frederick's  kinder 
treatment  of  Klebitz,  however,  must  not,  however,  be 
laid  down  to  his  growing  inclination  to  the  Reformed, 
but  rather  to  his  great  fairness  of  mind,  because  he  felt 
Hesshuss  was  the  aggressor  in  this  quarrel.  This  is 
another  instance  of  Frederick's  great  fairness  of  temper. 

Klebitz  hastened  his  departure,  for  the  people  of 
Heidelberg  seem  to  have  been,  as  a  rule,  against  him.  At 
least  that  is  what  Melancthon  stated  to  Hardenberg,  the 
Melancthonian  of  Bremen,  on  January  i,  1560,  when  he 
wrote  to  him  that  if  he  had  to  leave  Bremen,  he  had 
better  not  go  to  Heidelberg,  for  though  he  would  be 
kindly  received  by  the  university,  yet  the  people  were 
not  of  his  way  of  thinking.  It  is  wonderful  to  see  how 
Frederick  ultimately  brought  this  city,  now  strongly  Lu- 
theran, around  to  his  Heidelberg  catechism  in  1563.  In 
Klebitz'  place,  a  Reformed  minister  was  appointed,  at 
which  some  members  of  the  court  protested,  and  at  once 
received  their  dismissal. 

Hesshuss  also  left,  but  his  intensely  polemical  nature 
brought   him    into    trouble    wherever   he   went.     He    is 


ELECTOR   FREDERICK'S  CONVERSION 


143 


called  "the  man  of  seven  exiles,"  for  seven  times  he 
was  ordered  out  of  the  cities  where  he  preached  because 
of  his  quarrelsomeness.  Heidelberg  was  the  third  place 
that  he  was  compelled  to  leave. 

After  he  had  dismissed  both  Hesshuss  and  Klebitz, 
Frederick  did  a  most  important  thing,  one  of  the  most 
important  in  this  series  of  events.  Two  days  later  (Sep- 
tember 18),  he  sent  his  private  secretary,  Cirler,  who 
was  married  to  a  niece  of  Melancthon,  to  Wittenberg, 
to  get  the  opinion  of  Melancthon  on  the  best  method  of 
settling  the  difficulties  in  the  Palatinate  Church.  And 
Melancthon's  answer  came  to  him  November  i. 

This  opinion  of  Melancthon  was  exceedingly  im- 
portant for  two  reasons : 

1.  It  was  the  last  public  expression  of  his  views 
before  he  died,  for  Melancthon  died  the  next  year,  April 
19,  1560. 

2.  Melancthon,  usually  so  irenic,  here  speaks  out  on 
some  of  the  vital  questions  of  the  day,  as  he  had  not 
done.  He  seems  to  have  been  driven  to  it  by  the  "rage 
of  theologians"  and  by  their  attacks  on  him.  For  once 
he  talked  back. 

In  his  Opinion,  he  replies  by  suggesting  a  formula  on 
which  all  should  unite,  namely :  the  use  of  the  words 
of  the  Bible  (i  Cor.  10:  16)  at  the  Lord's  Supper,  that 
the  bread  was  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ 
and  the  wine  the  communion  of  His  blood.  This  was 
a  very  beautiful  idea,  for  the  Bible  ought  to  be  the 
great  harmonizer.  The  high-Lutherans,  however,  refused 
to  accept  this  advice  of  Melancthon. 

But  Melancthon  went  on  to  explain  what  is  meant 
by  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ, — that  it  did 
not  mean  transubstantiation  as  the  Catholics  held ;  or,  as 
the  Lutherans  at  Bremen,  who  were  just  then  attacking 


144  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

his  supporter  and  friend,  Hardenberg,  and  who  said, 
that  the  bread  was  the  essential  body  of  Christ ;  and 
also  not  as  Hesshuss,  that  the  bread  was  the  true  body 
of  Christ.  He  said  communion  meant  that  by  which 
the  union  with  the  body  of  Christ  takes  place.  And 
he  added  a  significant  clause,  that  it  occurred  not  without 
thought,  as  occurred  when  mice  gnawed  at  bread. 

Now  all  this  is  very  significant.  First,  it  is  signifi- 
cant that  he  sets  aside  the  formula  used  in  the  Augsburg 
Confession  for  the  Bible  formula.  In  doing  this,  he  is 
going  beyond  what  Frederick  had  already  done.  Why 
he  did  this  must  be  conjectural.  Perhaps  he  felt  that 
the  phrase  in  the  Augsburg  Confession  would  not  be 
acceptable  to  all  Lutherans,  indeed  had  not  been  to  Hess- 
huss, And  he  may  have  felt  that  there  was  more  likeli- 
hood of  union  on  a  phrase  taken  from  the  Bible. 

Second,  And  yet  Melancthon,  in  using  the  phrase, 
"the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ,"  went  beyond 
strict  Lutheranism,  "which  would  have  said  not  the  com- 
munion of  the  body  of  Christ,"  but  that  it  is  the  body 
of  Christ.  His  formula  put  something  between  the 
communicant  and  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, namely,  the  communion.  It  is  interesting,  however, 
to  see  how  the  high-Lutherans  set  Paul's  words  about 
the  Lord's  Supper  over  against  Christ's  words.  Christ 
said,  "This  is  my  body."  Paul  said,  not  that  it  is  the 
body,  but  it  is  the  communion  of  the  body.  The  high- 
Lutherans  looked  with  some  suspicion  on  Paul's  phrase, 
as  if  his  word,  "communion,"  put  something  in  the  sac- 
rament between  Christ  and  the  communicant.  The  high- 
Lutherans  explained  Paul's  words  by  Christ's,  the  low- 
Lutherans  explained  Christ's  words  by  Paul's. 

Third,  Melancthon,  in  his  Opinion,  went  farther  than 
he  usually  did.     Usually,  so  irenic,  he  becomes  in  it  polem- 


ELECTOR   FREDERICK'S   CONVERSION        145 

ical  and  attacks  the  new  doctrine  of  ubiquity  of  the 
high-Lutherans.  He  also  suggested  the  calling  of  a  synod 
to  settle  the  matter. 

The  significance  of  Melancthon's  Opinion  was,  that 
it  approved  all  that  Frederick  had  done.  It  was  favor- 
able to  Frederick's  low-Lutheranism.  And  it  was  recog- 
nized at  Frederick's  court  by  the  high-Lutherans  as  a 
blow  against  them.*  On  the  other  hand,  nothing,  says 
Remling,  the  historian,  was  more  pleasing  to  the  Re- 
formed in  Frederick's  court  than  this  "Opinion."  Though 
it  did  not  come  over  entirely  to  their  views,  yet  it  enabled 
them  to  join  with  the  Melancthonians  there  against  the 
high-Lutherans  and  thus  gain  the  upper  hand  with  the 
Elector. 

But  while  Melancthon's  Opinion  was  low-Lutheran, 
Frederick  was  still  a  Lutheran.  For,  in  October  of  that 
year,  he  ordered  his  son  Christopher  to  be  instructed  in 
Luther's  catechism.  This  was  the  more  remarkable,  for 
the  catechism  hitherto  used  by  the  low-Lutherans  in  the 
Palatinate  was  not  Luther's,  but  Brenz'.  And  yet  now 
Frederick  ordered  the  very  catechism  for  which  the  high- 
Lutherans  fought,  to  be  used  for  his  boy.  That  does 
not  look  as  if  he  was  Reformed.  Another  sign  was, 
that  he  wrote  to  his  high-Lutheran  son-in-law,  John 
Frederick,  October  24,  1559,  denying  that  he  was  a 
Zwinglian.  Duke  John  Frederick  then  had  an  opinion 
drawn  up  by  two  of  his  theologians,  Stoessel  and  Moerlin, 
just  as  Melancthon  had  drawn  his  up.  He  sent  it  to 
Frederick,  for  which  Frederick  thanked  him  December  11, 

1559. 

And  yet  this  was  not  all  that  came  out  of  Melanc- 

*Benningen,  the  high-Lutheran  judge  in  Frederick's  court, 
wrote,  November  5,  1559,  to  Strasburg,  saying  of  it:  "It  was 
the  work  of  the  devil."  Struve,  the  historian,  says  Frederick 
became  Reformed  at  this  time ;  but  he  is  mistaken. 

10 


146  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

thon's  Opinion.  Frederick,  while  accepting  it,  yet  went 
to  work  to  seek  light  for  himself.  There  came  to  him 
a  great  season  of  searching  and  proving  by  prayer  and 
the  study  of  God's  Word.  Though  he  calls  himself  only 
a  "poor  plain  layman,"  yet  he  said,  "that  he  hoped  by 
the  aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  "if  he  would  diligently 
pray,  God  would  reveal  the  truth  to  him  as  well  as  to 
the  most  learned  doctor  or  theologians."  He  spent  whole 
days  and  half  the  night  over  his  Bible  and  theological 
works  and  in  prayer.  He  was  so  assiduous  in  this  that 
the  marshal  of  his  court  declared  that  he  robbed  him- 
self of  sleep,  health  and  the  pleasures  of  life  in  order 
to  find  out  the  truth.  It  is  to  this  period  that  there 
belongs  a  pearl  of  our  Reformed  religious  literature,  a 
prayer  by  him,  based  on  the  Lord's  Prayer,  a  "Prince's 
Lord's  Prayer,"  a  beautiful  summary  of  petitions.  This 
prayer  is  based  on  the  motto  of  Frederick,  "Lord,  ac- 
cording to  Thy  will." 

And  here  we  must  pause  in  the  history  to  note  an 
important  fact.  Frederick,  in  all  this  study  of  the  Bible 
and  prayer,  took  his  first  step  toward  becoming  Re- 
formed. He  became  not  yet  a  conscious,  but  rather  an 
unconscious  Reformed.  He  was  still  a  Lutheran  and 
not  conscious  that  he  was  becoming  Reformed.  But 
when  he  went  to  the  Bible  for  his  rule,  he  adopted  the 
Reformed  principle,  "The  Bible,  the  whole  Bible,  and 
nothing  but  the  Bible."  For,  while  the  Lutherans  and 
the  Reformed  both  accept  the  Bible,  yet  the  Lutherans, 
as  compared  with  the  Reformed,  do  so,  negatively,  the 
Reformed,  positively.  The  Lutherans  take  what  is  not 
forbidden  by  the  Bible,  the  Reformed  only  what  is  author- 
ized by  the  Bible.  And  Frederick  adopted  this  Re- 
formed principle  here.  This  distinction  was  the  more 
noticeable,    for   neither   of    the    Augsburg    Confessions, 


ELECTOR  FREDERICK'S  CONVERSION        147 

either  of  1530  or  1540,  clearly  make  the  Bible  the  rule 
of  faith.  The  Lutherans  here  defended  this  lack  of 
reference  to  the  Bible  by  saying  that  Melancthon,  in  pre- 
senting that  Confession  to  the  Catholic  emperor,  was  too 
politic  to  inject  the  Bible  as  over  against  the  Church. 
But  Zwingli's  Confession,  sent  to  the  same  diet,  did  so. 
The  Reformed  creeds  always  speak  out  on  the  Bible  as 
the  rule  of  faith.  Now,  Frederick,  in  seeking  light  from 
the  Bible  above  any  confessions,  and  even  above  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  passed  over  unconsciously  to  the 
Reformed  position.  And  his  later  acts  are  but  the  logical 
fulfilment  of  this  great  principle,  that  he  laid  hold  of 
here,  in  the  midst  of  great  sighing  and  tears,  like  his 
Master  in  the  Garden, 

Another  important  event  at  the  close  of  1559  needs 
to  be  noted  here.  Hardly  had  Melancthon's  Opinion  been 
given,  than  Frederick  appointed  a  new  church  court,  a 
consistory  to  rule  his  church.  It  was  composed  of  six 
members  and  made  up  from  the  court,  the  church  and 
the  university.  Frederick  had  had  enough  of  one-man 
rule  in  his  church  under  Hesshuss,  he  now  placed  it  in  the 
care  of  six.  But  what  was  most  remarkable  was,  that 
he  put  a  strong  Reformed  at  its  head  in  Zuleger. 

B.      THE  YEAR   I560 

The  opening  of  this  year  revealed  the  continuance 
of  the  bitter  controversies,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the 
leaders  in  it  had  been  dismissed,  and  that  Melancthon 
had  given  his  Opinion,  which,  it  was  expected,  would 
harmonize  all  difficulties.  The  quarrels  now  broke  out 
in  the  court.  There  Chancellor  Minkwitz,  who  was  a 
high-Lutheran,  was  attacked  by  Probus,  who  was  Re- 
formed.    Probus  was  a  political  rival  of  Minkwitz,  who 


148  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

had,  under  Otto  Henry,  displaced  him  as  chancellor.  He 
charged  Minkwitz  with  making  Luther  an  idol  and  also 
with  saying  that  the  Elector  was  a  Calvinist.  For  this, 
Minkwitz  replied  by  calling  him  a  liar.  The  Elector 
tried  to  temper  their  anger  against  each  other,  but  they 
remained  sworn  foes. 

Hesshuss  also  published  his  work  on  "the  Presence 
of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper."  Its  preface  was  dated 
October  20,  1559,  when  he  was  still  smarting  under  his 
dismissal  from  Heidelberg.  In  it  he  defends  the  high- 
Lutheran  view  of  the  presence  of  Christ's  body  in  the 
Lord's  Supper,  and  adds  an  appendix  on  some  errors  of 
Calvin.  The  circulation  of  the  book  was  forbidden  at 
Heidelberg.  It  had  its  effect  in  strengthening  the  high- 
Lutherans.  Olevianus  now  begins  to  appear,  having 
been  appointed  professor  of  theology  in  the  university  at 
the  beginning  of  this  year.  According  to  the  status  of 
the  university,  he  must  have  taken  oath  on  the  Augsburg 
Confession.  But,  although  he  was  a  Calvinist,  this  gave 
him  little  trouble,  as  it  was  the  Altered  Augsburg.  Evi- 
dently his  ability  at  Treves  had  given  him  a  reputation. 
Sudhoff  suggests  that  Olevianus,  in  teaching,  used  Calvin's 
"Institutes,"  which  found  so  much  popularity,  especially 
from  Farel,  that  it  was  published,  and  with  it  he  tried  to 
indoctrinate  his  pupils.  But  he  is  probably  in  error  here. 
This  publication  by  Olevianus  of  the  "Institutes"  of  Cal- 
vin did  not  take  place  till  after  he  had  been  using  them, 
not  at  Heidelberg,  but  twenty  years  later,  at  Herborn, 
where  he  became  professor  at  the  end  of  his  life.  Cal- 
vin's "Institutes,"  published  by  Olevianus,  was  not  pub- 
lished till  1586.  Boquin,  early  in  this  year,  had  a  call  to 
the  French  Reformed  Church  at  Strasburg.  And  it  is  here 
that  Olevianus  first  appears  on  the  scene  by  writing  a 
letter  (April  12)  to  Calvin.     For  he  was  greatly  alarmed 


ELECTOR  FREDERICK'S  CONVERSION        149 

at  the  possible  loss  of  Boquin,  who  had  been  the  main 
instrument  in  the  introduction  of  the  Reformed  faith  into 
Heidelberg.  He  asks  in  this  letter  that  Calvin  would 
use  his  influence  on  Boquin  not  to  accept  the  call  to 
Strasburg.  He  also  asks  (and  this  is  somewhat  signifi- 
cant so  early),  that  Calvin  would  send  him  the  Church 
government  of  the  Reformed  Church  at  Geneva,  so  that 
he  might  show  it  to  the  consistory  of  the  Palatinate. 
Already  it  seems  this  zealous  young  man  had  a  vision  of 
that  land  becoming  Reformed. 

All  these  events  seem  to  have  roused  the  fear  of  the 
high-Lutherans  that  the  Palatinate  was  more  and  more 
drifting  over  to  the  Reformed.  We  have  already  seen 
how  Duke  John  Frederick  of  Saxony,  Frederick's  son-in- 
law,  and  Frederick's  wife  had  been  alarmed.  So  great 
was  their  anxiety,  that  on  March  15,  1560,  Frederick's 
wife,  in  a  letter  to  John  Frederick,  asks  him  to  have 
public  prayers  ofiFered  in  his  churches,  that  her  husband 
may  be  kept  in  the  Lutheran  faith.  She  was  intensely 
Lutheran  and  continued  so  for  some  time,  so  that  later 
there  was  even  a  slight  danger  of  an  open  breach  be- 
tween her  husband  and  herself.  But  later  she  did  what 
a  true  wife  should  do  and  obeyed  her  husband,  and  ac- 
cepted his  faith,  though  she  did  it  of  her  own  free  will 
and  she  afterwards  became  a  zealous  Reformed. 

In  view  of  these  facts  and  especially  that  the  con- 
sistory or  head  of  the  Palatinate  Church  was  controlled 
by  the  Reformed,  and  that  Frederick  was  more  and  more 
surrounded  by  the  Reformed  in  court  and  university, 
it  was  high  time  that  a  special  efifort  should  be  made 
to  steady  Frederick  in  his  adherence  to  the  Lutheran 
faith. 

An  incident  oflfered  the  opportunity  to  Duke  John 
Frederick  of  Saxony  to  do  so.    Frederick  seems  to  have 


ISO 


THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 


had  so  many  excellent  daughters,  that  not  only  had 
Duke  John  Frederick  married  one,  but  his  brother,  John 
William,  also  had  arranged  to  marry  another.  Duke 
John  Frederick  saw  in  this  wedding  an  opportunity  to 
use  his  influence  on  Frederick.  He  therefore  brought 
along  to  Heidelberg  two  of  his  theologians,  Stoessel  and 
Moerlin.  These  two  Dukes  remained  in  and  around 
Heidelberg  for  six  weeks  and  John  Frederick  took  fre- 
quent opportunity  to  warn  Frederick  and  his  court 
against  the  evils  of  Zwinglianism.  His  court  preacher, 
Stoessel,  was  permitted  by  Frederick  to  preach.  And  he 
abused  this  privilege  by  publicly  denouncing  Frederick 
and  his  council  as  Zwinglians,  because  he  said  they  did 
not  believe  that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  were  dis- 
tributed at  the  Lord's  Supper.  And  he  would  have  had 
the  audacity  to  get  this  sermon  printed,  and  thus  exert 
a  high-Lutheran  influence  in  wider  circles  if  the  Elector 
had  not  forbidden  it. 

Frederick  evidently  was  now  in  a  very  uncomfortable 
position.  His  high-Lutheran  visitors  were  heating  up 
his  own  people  against  him.  His  wife,  in  the  court,  was 
heating  up  the  ladies  against  him.  He  complains  in  his 
letters  that  he  had  more  trouble  than  he  could  well  bear, 
and  could  not  have  borne  it  if  the  Lord  had  not  helped 
him. 

So  it  was  finally  arranged  that  there  should  be  a 
public  disputation  on  June  3,  in  the  auditorium  of  the  uni- 
versity. This  took  place  in  the  presence  of  the  court  and 
the  university,  and  lasted  five  days.  On  the  one  side 
were  Stoessel  and  Moerlin,  who  defended  high-Luther- 
anism.  Hesshuss  had,  some  time  before,  sent  Klebitz' 
theses  to  them  and  they  were  therefore  prepared  to  attack 
the  Reformed.  On  the  other  side  was  Boquin,  as  head  of 
the  theological  faculty.     Olevianus,  though  professor  of 


ELECTOR   FREDERICK'S  CONVERSION        151 

theology,  did  not  take  part,  which  is  a  wonder,  consider- 
ing his  aggressive  dispostion.  Boquin  proposed  seven 
theses,  on  which  the  debate  took  place  on  the  first  two 
days.  They  were  Reformed  in  doctrine  and  almost  the 
same  that  Klebitz  had  proposed  for  his  degree,  and 
against  which  Hesshuss  had  so  protested.  In  them,  Bo- 
quin defended  the  view  that  bread  and  wine  were  sym- 
bols, but  not  only  symbols,  for  Christ  was  present  spirit- 
ually in  the  Lord's  Supper  to  believers.  He  was  so  care- 
ful to  guard  himself  against  the  idea  that  the  bread 
and  wine  were  only  symbols  (which  was  the  great 
charge  of  the  Lutherans  against  the  Reformed),  that 
Stoessel  in  the  progress  of  the  discussion  had  to  grant 
that  the  meaning  of  his  opponent  was,  that  Christ's  body 
was  truly  given  at  the  Lord's  Supper,  together  with  the 
bread,  but  to  believers. 

On  the  other  side,  the  high-Lutheran  theologians  pro- 
posed twenty-four  theses,  which  stated  the  high-Lutheran 
doctrine,  in  all  its  sharpness,  over  against  the  Reformed 
on  three  points : 

First.  Christ's  body  was  really  and  essentially  pres- 
ent in  the  Lord's  Supper.  This  was  over  against  the 
Zwinglians,  who  held  the  elements  were  mere  signs,  and 
also  over  against  the  Calvinists,  who  held  that  the  power 
and  activity  of  Christ's  body  were  in  the  Lord's  Supper, 
yet  denied  that  its  substance  was  really  there. 

Second.  The  body  and  blood  of  Christ  were  re- 
ceived through  the  mouth. 

Third.  They  were  received  by  unbelievers  and  hypo- 
crites. 

These  were  debated  during  the  last  three  days  of  the 
conference. 

During  the  discussion,  there  was  an  interesting  by- 
play.    Erastus,  who  was  rector  of  the  university,  and 


152  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

who  (as  we  have  already  seen),  was  a  theologian  as 
well  as  a  physician,  attempted  to  take  part  in  the  discus- 
sion. It  seems  that  he  sat  at  the  table  with  Boquin,  and 
at  times  would  give  him  important  points  against  his 
opponents.  His  keen  remarks  were  not  to  Stoessel's 
taste.  When,  on  one  occasion,  Erastus  attempted  to 
take  part  in  the  debate,  Stoessel  perpetrated  a  joke  at 
his  expense,  namely,  that  the  affairs  of  the  Reformed 
must  be  in  a  pretty  bad  way  when  they  needed  to  call  in 
a  doctor.  An  attempt  was  then  made  to  get  Stoessel 
into  a  debate  with  Erastus  one  afternoon,  and  it  had 
gone  so  far  as  to  have  the  approval  of  the  Elector  and 
the  Dukes  of  Saxony.  But  Stoessel  declined  on  the  plea 
that  Erastus  was  not  a  theologian,  but  a  physician.  Stoes- 
sel said  to  him,  "You  are  a  doctor  and  have  no  call  to 
mix  in  these  things."  At  which,  Erastus  replied,  "But 
I  am  also  a  Christian  and  want  to  confess  my  faith  before 
everyone."  In  saying  this,  Erastus  was  revealing  the 
true  Reformed  temperament, — that  each  Christian, 
though  a  layman,  ought  to  be  ready  to  confess  his  faith. 
Had  the  debate  come  off  between  Erastus  and  Stoessel, 
Erastus  would  have  been  a  sharp  polemist,  if  we  may 
judge  from  his  book  published  later. 

The  conference  instead  of  producing  union,  only  re- 
vealed the  difference  between  the  two  parties.  The 
theses  of  both  sides  were  published.  The  two  Dukes 
had  the  proceedings  published  at  Erfurt,  with  a  sharp 
censure  of  Boquin  added.  Boquin  published  his  theses 
with  a  brief  explanation  of  their  meaning  (Calvin,  says 
Seisen,  was  not  satisfied  with  the  outcome  of  this  con- 
ference). Later,  in  1566,  after  this  controversy  was 
over,  Boquin  again  published  these  theses,  prefacing 
them  with  Brenz'  statements  about  the  Lord's  Supper, 
as  published  in  his  commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  John, 


ELECTOR  FREDERICK'S  CONVERSION         153 

published  in  1528.  Brenz  in  that  early  day  virtually  took 
the  Reformed  position. 

The  influence  of  this  disputation,  it  is  important  to 
notice.  In  the  case  of  Stoessel,  it  was  the  beginning  of 
his  ultimate  separation  from  the  high-Lutherans,  and 
his  acceptance  of  the  Melancthonian  views,  for  which  he 
died  in  prison. 

But  most  important  is  it  to  notice  the  influence  of  this 
disputation  on  the  Elector  Frederick.  And  just  here  is 
where  the  greatest  confusion  appears  between  the  dif- 
ferent historians.  Alting,  Seisen,  Remling,  Sudhofif  and 
Seisen  say  that  this  conference  made  Frederick  Re- 
formed. Seisen  says,  that  "as  Luther's  disputation  in 
1 5 18  in  the  Augustinian  cloister  at  Heidelberg  led  to  the 
origin  of  the  reformation  in  the  Palatinate,  so  this  dis- 
putation led  to  the  origin  of  the  Reformed  Church  there." 
But  in  this  we  cannot  agree  with  them.  Kluckhohn,  who 
is  the  biographer  of  Frederick,  and  who  also  published  his 
Letters,  proves  that  at  this  time  Frederick  did  not  recog- 
nize the  untenableness  of  Melancthon's  views.* 

Probably  the  influence  on  Frederick  is  best  stated 
by  Alting,  who  says,  "that  the  Saxon  theologians  seemed 
to  excel  in  boldness  and  fluency  of  speech,  but  Fred- 
erick's theologians  in  intelligence  and  thorough  defense 
of  the  simple  truth."  In  other  words,  while  the  Saxon 
Lutherans  had  the  more  eloquence,  the  Reformed  had 
more  arguments.  The  influence  on  Frederick  seems  to 
have  been,  that  it  revealed  to  him  more  than  ever  that 
the  high-Lutherans  were  weak  in  argument  and  also  that 
the  Reformed  had  a  strong  case.  Frederick  v/as  not 
as  fully  satisfied  with  the  arguments  of  the  Lutherans, 
as  of  his  own  theologians,  as  for  instance,  the  remark  of 
Boquin   which    seemed   to   the   Elector  of   the   greatest 

*  See  Kluckhohn's  "Life  of  Frederick,"  page  73. 


154 


THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 


significance,  that  "one  could  hold  to  the  true  presence 
of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper  without  declaring  that 
the  body  was  in,  with  and  under  the  bread,  or  holding  to 
oral  manducation.  When  Boquin  asked  of  what  use  was 
the  oral  manducation,  he  received  only  the  answer,  "so 
that  the  veracity  of  Christ  might  not  be  made  less.  This 
was  like  Luther  at  Marburg,  who,  when  he  was  silenced 
by  Zwingli's  argument,  could  only  point  to  the  words : 
"This  is  My  body,"  which  he  had  already  written  on  the 
table  before  him. 

But  Frederick  remained,  as  before,  a  Lutheran,  or 
perhaps  it  is  better  stated,  an  irenic  Lutheran,  for  peace 
and  unity  were  as  yet  his  great  ideals.  And  it  was  his 
steadfast  adherence  to  them  that  soon  produced  startling 
results.  For  it  seems  that  the  disputation  had  poured 
oil  on  the  fire  by  greatly  encouraging  the  high-Lutherans 
in  the  Palatinate.  And  this  was  serious,  for  most  of 
the  pastors  of  Heidelberg  were  high-Lutheran.  Fred- 
erick had  a  conference  with  Cuneus,  pastor  of  St.  Peter's 
Church,  who  was  one  of  them  and  also  of  the  consistory, 
together  with  Neser,  Greiner  and  Conrad,  but  without 
result.    They  still  kept  up  their  polemics. 

Finally  Frederick  seems  to  have  become  tired  of  the 
strife  and  he  dismissed  those  who  kept  up  these  polemics. 
On  August  12,  he  took  matters  in  his  hand  and  ordered 
that  all  the  ministers  who  would  not  keep  silence  about 
polemics  should  be  dismissed.  As  a  result,  the  four 
ministers  of  Heidelberg,  whom  we  have  mentioned,  were 
dismissed,  also  two  at  Oppenheim,  one  at  Alzei  and  a 
superintendent  at  Kaiserlautern.  He  did  not  send  them 
away  because  they  were  high-Lutherans,*  but  because 

*  The  historians  seem  to  differ  as  to  the  cause.  Some  say  he 
required  them  to  subscribe  to  the  Frankford  Recess,  others  to 
the  Opinion  of  Melancthon.     We  here  follow  Kluckhohn. 


ELECTOR  FREDERICK'S  CONVERSION 


155 


they  would  not  stop  their  polemics.  It  seems  that  the 
great  body  of  the  preachers,  especially  in  the  country 
districts  of  the  Palatinate,  were  low-Lutheran  or  irenic, 
and  therefore  were  not  dismissed.  Frederick  also  dis- 
missed Stab,  his  wife's  court-preacher,  because  it  was 
found  that  among  the  satirical  poems  published  at  that 
time  by  the  high-Lutherans,  he  had  written  one  published 
by  his  son,  which  said  that  Frederick  was  led  around 
by  the  nose  by  Count  George  of  Erbach. 

As  a  result  of  this  order  of  Frederick  against  the 
ministers,  his  chancellor,  Minkwitz,  and  Judge  von  Ben- 
ningen,  the  two  high-Lutheran  representatives  in  his 
court,  at  beginning  of  next  year  resigned.  This  dismis- 
sal and  resignation  of  these  high-Lutherans  ultimately 
proved  a  good  thing  for  the  introduction  of  the  Re- 
formed faith  later,  for  it  removed  its  greatest  oppo- 
nents. So  that  when  the  Reformed  religion  was  later 
introduced,  it  was  done  with  very  little  difficulty,  for  its 
greatest  opponents  were  gone.  Frederick  in  all  this  was 
only  pursuing  his  main  idea  of  peace  and  unity  in  the 
Church,  which  was  dearer  to  him  than  any  of  the  parties 
in  it. 

In  September,  Boquin  published  Melancthon's  Opinion 
of  1559.  ss  if  to  show  that  all  was  done  according  to 
Melancthon's  ideas. 

c.     THE  YEAR  1561 

The  year  1561  was  the  year  of  the  greatest  impor- 
tance, for  it  was  the  year  when  Elector  Frederick  III 
became  Reformed.  And  yet  even  this  statement  must  be 
taken  with  some  qualification  as  we  shall  see.  The  main 
cause  of  it  was  the  conference  of  the  German  princes  at 
Naumberg,  in  January  of  that  year.     But  even  before 


156  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

that,  several  events  are  significant.  The  year  opened  in- 
auspiciously  for  the  high  Lutherans.  Not  merely  did 
Minkwitz  and  Benningen  resign,  but  the  only  remaining 
Lutheran  professor  of  theology  at  the  university  Einhorn, 
who  was  a  high-Lutheran,  was  dismissed  and  Tremellius 
a  converted  Jew  and  Reformed,  was  called  in  his  place. 
Thus  the  whole  faculty  was  now  Reformed,  Boquin, 
Olevianus  and  Tremellius.  At  the  beginning  of  1561, 
Boquin  published  two  important  works.  One  was  a 
"Reply  to  Hesshuss'  Presence  of  the  Christ  in  the  Lord's 
Supper,"  It  was  a  large  book,  in  Latin,  of  250  pages. 
Count  George  of  Erbach,  at  the  end  of  the  previous  year, 
opposed  the  Elector's  giving  his  permission  for  its  publi- 
cation, lest  it  would  only  lead  to  the  continuation  of  the 
polemics.  But  it  was  published,  nevertheless,  at  Basle. 
Hesshuss  replied  to  it  the  next  year  in  a  volume  "Verae  et 
sanae  Confessiones,"  that  answered  the  different  Reformed 
reformers,  Calvin,  Beza,  Boquin  and  Klebitz.  Klebitz, 
after  his  departure  from  Heidelberg,  published  in  this 
year  at  Freiburg,  a  book  entitled,  "The  Victory  of  the 
Truth  and  the  Ruin  of  the  Saxon  Papacy."  He  replied 
in  scathing  words  to  Hesshuss'  attempts  to  be  a  Lutheran 
pope,  and  his  efforts  to  introduce  Saxon  high-Lutheranism 
into  the  Palatinate.  Hesshuss,  in  his  reply,  does  not 
mention  his  name,  but  calls  him  "Kleinwitzius"  or  "Little- 
wit,"  as  if  to  say  that  he  was  of  little  consequence  in  the 
intellectual  world.  Still  another  significant  book  seems 
to  have  appeared,  if  we  may  believe  the  high-Lutherans; 
Boquin,  at  the  beginning  of  this  year,  published  Calvin's 
catechism,  translated  into  the  Greek  language. 

The  Conference  at  Naumberg  met  January  20,  1561. 
It  was  another  attempt  to  unite  the  German  Protestant 
princes  against  the  Catholics,  who  had  become  united  at 
the  Council  of  Trent.     This  was  a  difficult  task,  for  the 


ELECTOR   FREDERICK'S  CONVERSION        157 

Lutherans  were  divided  into  two  parties.  Tiie  high- 
Lutherans  controlled  Thuringia,  ducal  Saxony,  Mecklen- 
berg  and  Pomerania,  and  Duke  John  Frederick  of  Sax- 
ony, was  their  leader.  But  the  majority  of  princes,  as 
Electoral  Saxony,  Hesse,  Wurtemberg,  Zweibriicken  and 
the  Palatinate  were  Melancthonian.  How  to  heal  this 
breach  was  the  great  problem.  Into  the  minute  details 
of  the  Naumburg  Conference  we  have  not  time  to  enter. 
An  attempt  was  made  at  this  conference,  because  almost 
all  the  princes,  who  had  signed  the  Augsburg  Confession 
in  1530,  had  died,  to  have  it  signed  over  again  by  the 
princes  then  living.  But  when  at  this  conference  they 
tried  to  find  a  copy  of  the  original  Augsburg  Confession 
of  1530,  as  presented  by  Melancthon  to  the  German 
Emperor,  no  copy  of  it  could  be  found.  (Rev.  Prof. 
James  W.  Richard,  D.D.,  one  of  the  best  historians  of 
the  Lutheran  Church  in  this  country,  in  his  "Confes- 
sional History  of  the  Lutheran  Church,"  says  there  is 
no  such  thing  as  an  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  in 
existence,  as  the  original  had  been  lost.  He  shows  that 
there  were  a  great  many  editions,  and  that  Melancthon 
made  a  great  many  changes  in  them,  so  that  even  the 
old  view  of  most  church  historians  that  there  were  two 
main  editions,  namely,  of  1530  and  of  1540,  does  not 
hold.)  A  later  edition  of  1530  was  found;  but  it  was 
found  that  it  acknowledged  transubstantiation  in  the 
Lord's  Supper.  This  discovery,  as  we  shall  see,  pro- 
duced a  profound  impression  on  Frederick.  In  a  later 
edition,  of  1531,  this  objectionable  statement  had  been 
removed.  So  the  Protestant  princes  agreed  to  sign  this 
edition  of  1531.  But  Frederick  stood  out  for  the  Altered 
edition  of  1540,  because  it  had  been  in  common  use  for 
so  long  a  time.  Finally  a  compromise  was  reached,  and 
the  princes,  even  Frederick,  signed  the  edition  of  1531- 


158  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

But  in  the  preface  that  they  placed  before  it,  there  was 
this  statement,  that  "we  will  not  suffer  ourselves  to  be 
deflected  from  the  Confession  as  explained  and  again 
delivered  in  1540."  So  their  act  was  not  intended  to 
weaken  the  subscription  to  the  1540  edition,  because  it 
had  become  so  widely  used.  And  so  Frederick  could 
still  hold  to  the  Altered  Augsburg.  The  formula  at 
Naumburg  accentuated  the  real  presence  of  Christ  in  the 
Supper,  but  said  nothing  about  oral  manducation  or  the 
reception  of  Christ's  body  by  unbelievers,  and  in  this 
was  unsatisfactory  to  the  high-Lutherans.  The  truth 
was,  that  this  pact  was  a  compromise,  in  which  neither 
seemed  to  gain  the  victory.  But  such  compromises  give 
dangerous  opportunities  for  future  conflicts  and  that  is 
what  happened.  The  Melancthonians  seemed  to  have 
gained  the  victory  at  Naumburg,  as  they  had  done  before 
at  Frankford,  in  1558.  But  no,  they  did  not.  For 
Duke  John  Frederick  of  Saxony  was  not  satisfied.  He 
had  wanted  inserted  in  the  formula  a  clause  denouncing 
the  sects,  referring  of  course,  to  the  Zwinglians  and  Re- 
formed. As  that  was  not  done,  he  created  a  sensation 
by  suddenly  leaving  the  conference  at  Naumburg  as  his 
protest  against  its  action.  And  strange  to  say,  although 
almost  alone  at  Naumburg  (Mecklenburg  was  the  only 
duchy  that  supported  him),  yet  his  views  ultimately 
gained  the  victory.  For  the  Lutheran  princes,  who  had 
been  Melancthonian,  one  by  one  went  over  to  his  side, 
until  Elector  Frederick  was  largely  left  alone  in  his  ad- 
herence to  low-Lutheranism  and  the  Altered  Augsburg 
Confession.  That  was  the  reason  why  Elector  Frederick 
ultimately  went  over  to  the  Reformed.  He  was  forced 
to  go,  by  being  forced  out  by  them.  But  all  this  did  not 
as  yet  appear. 

However,  this  Naumberg  conference  left  a  perma- 


ELECTOR  FREDERICK'S  CONVERSION         159 

nent  result  on  Frederick.  It  revealed  to  him  that  the 
early  Lutheran  faith  was,  as  he  styled  it,  "popish"  on 
the  Lord's  Supper.  This  shook  the  authority  of  Luther 
over  him.  He  still  respected  him  as  a  great  man,  but 
he  could  no  longer  look  up  to  him  as  infallible.  And 
what  is  even  more  significant,  this  discovery  about  the 
first  edition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  also  shook  the 
absolute  authority  of  Melancthon  over  him.  If  the  au- 
thor of  the  Augsburg  Confession  erred  in  its  first 
edition,  why  not  in  later  editions.  Before  this,  Fred- 
erick had  unhesitatingly  accepted  the  Melancthonian 
or  low-Lutheran  doctrines.  Now,  however,  doubts 
were  raised  in  his  mind  that  perhaps  they  might 
not  be  altogether  true.  It  was  a  terrible  awakening 
for  Frederick.  But  it  only  drove  him  more  and  more 
to  his  Bible.  The  more  he  studied  the  Bible,  the  more 
he  felt  that  Luther  could,  and  did  err.  It  seemed  to  him 
that  Luther,  even  after  he  became  a  reformer,  was  still 
held  by  some  Catholic  ideas,  and  he  came  to  the  con- 
clusion that  stiff  Lutheranism  still  had  some  Catholicism 
sticking  in  it.  But  though  he  broke  away  from  Luther, 
it  did  not  lead  him  nearer  Calvin,  for  he  says  at  the  Augs- 
burg Diet  (1566),  that  he  had  read  neither  Calvin's  or 
Zwingli's  works  (and  this  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  Calvin 
had  once  dedicated  to  him  his  Commentary  on  Jeremiah. 
He  could  not,  however,  say  as  much  about  Bullinger, 
whom  he  seemed  to  have  called  to  his  help  by  that  time). 
Frederick  in  thus  turning  to  the  Bible  and  making  it 
the  infallible  rule,  was  only  carrying  out  his  unconscious 
tendency  toward  the  Reformed.  We  have  seen  how,  in 
1559,  he  became  unconsciously  Reformed;  now.  in  1561, 
he  became  consciously  Reformed.  But  still  he  is  not 
openly  Reformed.  For  in  those  days  it  often  happened 
that  men  became  Protestant  long  before  they  made  a 


l6o  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

public  profession  of  it,  and  so  it  was  that  Frederick  be- 
came Reformed.  He  became  consciously  Reformed  be- 
fore he  became  openly  Reformed.  It  was  at  this  time, 
says  Kluckhohn,  his  biographer  and  best  historian,  that 
Frederick  became  Reformed.  He  took  his  first  step 
toward  a  profession  of  the  Reformed  faith.  And  yet, 
while  he  became  consciously  Reformed,  we  have  to  ex- 
plain certain  of  his  statements  that  occurred  later,  where 
he  declared  his  continued  adherence  to  the  Altered  Augs- 
burg Confession.  One  of  these  is  a  Hessian  document, 
another,  that  we  found  last  summer  (1913),  was  against 
an  attack  of  the  Catholics  (1565),  in  which  he  declares 
his  continued  adherence  to  the  Augsburg  Confession. 
And  this  fact  appears,  especially  in  his  defense  at  the  diet 
of  Augsburg,  in  1566,  where  he  states  his  continued  ad- 
herence to  that  creed.  How  can  we  harmonize  all  this 
with  the  statement  that  he  became  Reformed  in  1561,  and 
later  published  the  Heidelberg  catechism  in  1563.  Is 
Frederick  guilty  of  inconsistency,  pretending  to  be 
Lutheran,  when  he  was  Reformed.  Was  he  guilty  of 
hypocrisy,  when,  after  becoming  Reformed,  he  claimed 
the  protection  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  so  as  to  hold 
his  place  as  a  prince.  We  do  not  believe  it.  He  was  too 
pious  a  man  for  that.  All  his  dealings  show  him  to  be  a 
man  of  honor  and  fair  dealing.  There  are  only  two 
ways  (as  it  appears  to  us),  in  which  this  matter  can 
be  reconciled. 

First.  Frederick  believed  that  the  Altered  Augsburg 
Confession  was  broad  enough  to  cover  him  as  Reformed 
and  so  he  claimed  its  protection. 

Second.  Frederick  gradually  became  Reformed. 
First,  he  became  unconsciously  Reformed  in  1559.  Now 
he  becomes  consciously  Reformed  in  1561.  Later,  in 
1562,  as  we  shall  see,  he  became  openly  Reformed.     But 


ELECTOR   FREDERICK'S  CONVERSION        i6i 

he  did  not  officially  become  Reformed  until  after  the 
German  Diet  of  1566  had  led  to  the  granting  of  permission 
for  the  use  of  the  Heidelberg  catechism. 

We  believe  both  are  true,  and  that  all  the  while  he 
sincerely  held  to  the  Altered  Augsburg  Confession.  But 
it  may  be  remarked,  that  while  that  Confession  was  con- 
sidered Lutheran  then,  there  is  hardly  a  single  Lutheran 
Church  to-day  that  holds  to  it,  as  they  hold  to  the  Un- 
altered Augsburg.  We  have  dwelt  on  this  subject,  for 
it  is  a  difficult  one  and  one  that  has  perplexed  us  many 
years.  Frederick  now  made  the  Bible  his  rule  of  faith, 
but  still  adhering  to  the  Altered  Augsburg  Confession  as 
the  best  summary  of  its  truth.  One  thing,  however, 
was  very  evident,  he  had  broken  entirely  with  the  high- 
Lutherans.  On  March  10,  1561,  after  his  son-in-law 
had  sent  him  a  copy  of  one  of  Luther's  works,  published 
in  1544,  in  the  hope  of  influencing  him  against  the  Zwing- 
lians,  Frederick  replied  that  he  found  nothing  useful  in 
it,  only  denunciations  of  the  Reformed,  and  that  was 
not  right. 

And,  while  thus  openly  breaking  with  the  high-Lu- 
therans, Frederick  now  introduced  more  of  the  Reformed 
customs.  It  was  at  this  time,  says  Kluckhohn  (and  not 
a  year  before,  as  other  historians  put  it),  that  Frederick 
began  extensive  changes  in  the  cultus  of  the  Church. 
For  he  found  that  the  people,  though  Protestant,  did 
not  cease  to  venerate  the  wafer  as  being  the  body  of 
Christ  and  even  worshipped  it  as  God,  and  when  not 
permitted  to  eat  it,  demand  the  mere  sight  of  it.  He 
also  found  that  a  number  of  ministers  encouraged  such 
false  views,  some  even  declaring  that  they  had  the  real 
body  of  Christ  in  their  hand  and  reached  it  out  to  the 
people  at  the  communion.  Frederick  had,  by  this  time, 
become   thoroughly    Zwinglian   in   his   utter   abhorrence 

11 


i62  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

of  such  things.  So  he  began  great  changes  in  the 
churches.  The  statue  of  Count  Philip,  Otto  Henry's 
brother,  in  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  at  Heidelberg, 
he  caused  to  be  covered  with  a  black  cloth.  The  pictures 
on  the  walls  of  the  churches  he  caused  to  be  white- 
washed over.  He  closed  up  the  organs,  and  it  was  not 
until  a  century  had  passed,  1655,  that  the  organ  was 
again  used  in  Heidelberg.  Latin  singing  was  set  aside 
for  the  singing  of  Luther's  psalms  and  other  hymns. 
Fonts  were  cast  out,  for  as  he  wrote  (1564)  to  the  Duke 
of  Gotha,  none  of  the  apostles  were  baptized  in  stone 
coffins  like  them.  He  had  the  altars  cast  out  of  the 
churches  and  a  table  placed  instead  of  the  altar.  In- 
stead of  the  gold  chalice  used  for  the  wine  at  the  Lord's 
Supper,  a  pewter  or  wooden  cup  was  used.  And  in- 
stead of  wafers,  the  breaking  of  bread  was  introduced. 
It  is  probable,  says  Kluckhohn,  that  his  order  about  the 
breaking  of  bread  was  given  without  the  consent  of  the 
council.  But  that  would  have  mattered  little,  for  the 
Reformed  had  gotten  control  of  his  affairs,  both  in  court, 
consistory  and  university.  And  it  is  not  to  be  expected 
that  they  would  not  utilize  every  opportunity  for  their 
benefit.  Lay  baptism  was  set  aside.  The  communion 
of  the  sick  was  lessened,  so  that  it  might  not  be  con- 
sidered an  opus  operatum. 

For  many  of  these  reforms  he  could  quote  his  pre- 
decessor. Otto  Henry,  as  his  example ;  for  he,  as  we  saw,, 
puts  the  pictures  out  of  the  churches  and  also  altars, 
except  one  in  each  church.  But  Frederick  went  far  be- 
yond Otto  Henry  and  in  the  direction  of  the  Reformed. 
And  yet  he  did  not  do  this  because  he  was  Reformed, 
but  because  they  were  unbiblical,  for  now  he  was  above 
all  things  else  following  the  Bible.  Several  events 
occurred  in  1561  to  show  the  growing  tendency  at  Heidel- 


ELECTOR   FREDERICK'S  CONVERSION        163 

berg  toward  the  Reformed.  One  was  the  call  that  Fred- 
erick gave  to  Peter  Martyr,  the  great  Reformed  theo- 
logian of  the  early  reformation  next  to  Calvin.  As  he 
would  not  come,  Ursinus  came  at  his  recommendation. 
He  arrived  at  Heidelberg  September  9  of  this  year. 
And  Ursinus  was  thoroughly  Reformed  when  he  came. 
He  displaced  Olevianus  as  head  of  the  preparatory  theo- 
logical seminary,  at  Heidelberg,  called  the  "College  of 
Wisdom,"  and  later  as  professor  in  the  university.  Ole- 
vianus then  became  the  head  of  the  Palatinate  church. 
Boquin  also,  in  August,  1561,  published  an  important 
work :  an  "Exegesis  of  the  word  'koinoonia'  or  Commun- 
ion," his  second  for  that  year.  It  was  an  explanation  of 
the  divine  and  human  communion  at  the  Lord's  Supper. 
It  is,  in  reality,  a  brief  dogmatics,  of  about  200  pages, 
taking  up  the  various  doctrines  in  their  order.  With 
the  idea  of  communion,  he  takes  up  God,  Christ,  the 
Holy  Spirit,  the  ministry,  the  sacraments,  man,  the  soul, 
faith,  etc.,  all  as  different  parts  of  the  communion. 

Ursinus,  on  August  15,  1561,  received  the  doctor's 
degree,  for  the  statutes  of  the  university  required  it  of 
every  professor  of  theology.  As  professor,  he  would 
have  to  take  oath  on  the  Augsburg  Confession,  but  on 
the  Altered  Augsburg.  Late  in  1561,  Ursinus  published 
a  reply  to  Hesshuss,  his  maiden  effort,  and  the  beginning 
of  his  masterpieces  on  the  defense  of  the  Reformed 
doctrine.  Frederick  also  showed  his  growing  friendship 
for  the  Reformed  of  France  in  appointing  delegates  to 
the  great  conference  of  Poissy,  in  September,  1561,  where 
Beza  so  eloquently  defended  the  Reformed  before  the 
court.  He  appointed  Boquin  and  Diller,  but  they  returned 
before  they  got  to  Poissy. 

The  changed  condition  of  everything  at  Heidelberg 
is  shown,  in  August  25,  of  that  year,  by  the  judgment 


l64  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

that  the  Heidelburg  university  gave  in  regard  to  the 
case  of  Zanchius,  at  Strasburg,  Zanchius  was  Reformed, 
and  was  being  forced  out  of  Strasburg  by  the  high- 
Lutherans,  and  he  appealed  to  Heidelberg.  This  uni- 
versity pronounced  in  favor  of  his  doctrine  of  perse- 
verance of  the  saints,  which  is  a  distinctly  Reformed  doc- 
trine. (Zanchius  later  became  professor  of  Reformed 
theology  at  Heidelberg.)  That  a  Lutheran  university 
like  Heidelberg  should  thus  publicly  give  a  deliverance 
in  favor  of  the  Reformed  was  an  unheard  of  thing  in 
those  days.  It  caused  great  anxiety  among  the  high- 
Lutherans  about  Heidelberg,  and  was  the  signal  that  the 
Palatinate  was  becoming  Reformed. 

D.     THE  YEAR  1562 

If  1 561  was  the  year  of  preparation  for  the  transition 
to  the  Reformed,  the  next  year  marked  that  transition. 
Two  events  occurred  in  that  year  of  special  significance. 
One  was  the  publication  of  a  booklet,  which  Ebrard  says 
was  the  signal  that  Frederick  became  Reformed,  or  he 
would  not  have  allowed  it  to  be  published ;  indeed,  it  was 
published  at  the  order  of  the  Elector.  It  was  a  book 
by  Erastus,  who  hitherto  had  not  published  anything 
for  the  Reformed.*  Boquin  had  been  their  literary  cham- 
pion, but  now  Erastus  enters  the  field.  His  book  was  en- 
titled "Fundamental  Account  as  to  the  Way  in  which  the 
Words  of  Christ,  'This  is  my  Body,'  are  to  be  under- 
stood." It  is  a  bright,  clear  book  and  pronounced  on  the 
Reformed  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  He  calls  the 
sacraments  signs  and  seals.     Avoiding  the  somewhat  de- 

*  What  the  Elector  had  refused  to  do  for  Boquin's  Reply 
to  Hesshuss  a  year  before,  and  so  it  was  published  elsewhere,  he 
now  did  for  this  book  of  Erastus.     He  ordered  its  publication. 


ELECTOR   FREDERICK'S  CONVERSION        165 

vious  windings  by  which  theologians  sometimes  entered 
into  their  subjects,  he  went  straight  to  the  point  and  pro- 
duced a  book  of  remarkable  keenness,  and  one  very  hard 
for  the  Lutherans  to  answer.  It  is  also  quite  thorough 
for  a  layman.  He  first  takes  up  the  meaning  of  the 
words  "This  is  my  body,"  first  as  given  by  Paul,  then 
secondly  by  Christ,  and  third  and  lastly  by  the  early 
Church  Fathers,  quoting  from  Chrysostom,  Augustine 
and  Cyprian.  His  illustrations  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  as 
a  sign  and  seal,  are  clear  and  cogent.  He  is  severe  on 
the  high-Lutherans  as  strife-makers,  and  denounces  their 
idea  that  the  unworthy  receive  Christ's  body  at  the  Lord's 
Supper.  What  is  especially  noticeable  is  the  cocksure 
way  he  has  of  stating  his  affirmations,  repeatedly  refer- 
ring to  them  as  unanswerable.  But  this  very  element 
makes  the  book  the  more  interesting  reading.  This 
seems  to  have  been  the  Reformed  certainty  of  faith, 
which  was  a  product  of  their  doctrine  of  assurance. 
Such  a  cogent  defense  of  Reformed  doctrine  the  Luth- 
erans could  not  afford  to  let  go  unanswered,  and  Mar- 
bach,  the  prominent  Lutheran  of  Strasburg,  replied  to 
it.  Erastus  then  published  (1565)  a  Reply  to  Marbach's 
attack.  In  it  he  takes  up  Marbach's  book,  section  by  sec- 
tion, and  answers  it  in  detail.  The  preface  reveals  Eras- 
tus as  a  foeman  of  Marbach  steel,  even  though  he  was 
only  a  layman  and  a  doctor.  He  is  exceedingly  sharp 
and  keen.  For  at  the  close  of  the  preface  he  pokes  fun 
at  Marbach,  when,  after  speaking  of  the  poorness  of  the 
arguments  given  by  a  man  of  such  fame  and  ability  as 
Marbach,  he  Erastus  (a  doctor)  will  now  use  his  skill  and 
give  Dr.  Marbach  a  purge,  that  is,  provided  he  can  find 
enough  hellebore  to  do  so.  And  he  proceeds  to  do  it  in 
his  Reply.  We  have  dwelt  on  this  book  of  Erastus  in 
1562  because  it  was  an  epoch-making  book. 


l66  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

The  other  event  is  that  Frederick  appointed  a  commis- 
sion to  prepare  what  was  later  published  as  the  Heidel- 
berg catechism.*  We  have  seen  how  he  first  had  tried  to 
bring  about  peace  in  his  country  in  1559  by  the  publi- 
cation of  a  formula  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  then  later 
in  1560  by  a  conference  and  by  the  dismissal  of  polemists. 
Now  he  tried  a  fourth  method,  the  publication  of  a  cate- 
chism. One  reason  why  he  chose  this  last  method  was 
because  of  the  rivalry  in  the  Palatinate  between  Brenz' 
catechism,  which  had  formerly  been  used,  and  Luther's 
catechism.  To  avoid  trouble  about  this  he  decided  to  use 
neither,  and  he  got  out  the  Heidelberg  catechism.  His 
publication  of  a  new  catechism  was  not  a  thing  unusual 
in  those  days.  Cohrs  and  Reu,  in  their  republications  of 
the  catechisms  of  Germany  in  the  sixteenth  century,  give 
thousand  of  pages  of  catechisms.  It  was  a  catechism- 
producing  age.  And  Frederick,  doubtless,  did  not,  there- 
fore, expect  to  raise  the  hostility  that  afterwards  ap- 
peared against  his  catechism,  for  he  was  only  adding 
another  to  the  many  published  before.  But  he  was  most 
of  all  anxious  that  this  new  catechism  should  be 
Biblical,  for  he  was  now,  above  all  things,  a  student  of 
the  Bible.  It  was  on  the  Bible  that  it  was  to  be  based, 
as  he  himself  declares  in  his  defense  of  it  at  the  German 
diet  of  Augsburg,  1566.  An  interesting  fact  is  given  by 
Remling  that  it  was  at  the  suggestion  of  Olevianus  that 
he  ordered  this  catechism  to  be  prepared.  Wundt  says 
that  Olevianus  suggested  the  idea  of  a  catechism  and 
Ursinus  worked  it  out.  So  the  Elector  appointed  a  com- 
mission made  up  of  representatives  of  the  court,  the  uni- 

*  Alting  says  that  over  against  the  variety  of  catechisms 
in  the  Palatinate  the  Elector  wanted  to  introduce  into  all 
the  Churches  one  consistent  form  of  doctrine,  which  should  more 
clearly  set  forth  beside  other  doctrines,  especially  the  person  of 
Christ  and  the  sacraments. 


ELECTOR   FREDERICK'S   CONVERSION        167 

versity  and  the  Church.  These  seem  to  have  given  its 
composition  to  Ursinus  and  Olevianus  as  the  main 
authors.  By  comparing  it  with  Ursinus'  two  previous 
catechisms,  the  larger  and  shorter,  it  is  very  evident  that 
Ursinus  is  the  main  author.  Frederick  himself  declares 
that  what  was  placed  there  was  done  so  after  consulta- 
tion with  him.  The  only  place  he  corrected  it  was  in 
answer  78.  He  left  a  memorial  written  in  his  own  hand, 
in  which  he  expresses  approbation  of  the  78th  answer, 
which  was  a  quotation  from  the  Church  Father,  Theo- 
doret,  and  was  placed  in  the  catechism  so  as  to  show  that 
the  sacrament  was  not  merely  an  allegory  or  pretense, 
but  that  there  was  a  real  presence,  which,  though  not  a 
bodily  one,  was  a  spiritual  one  through  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Probably  what  Frederick  was  careful  about  was  that  it 
should  be  in  harmony  with  the  Altered  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, and  not  contain  anything  that  was  against  it.  So 
our  catechism  attacks  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  the  high- 
Lutherans  as  ubiquity,  oral  manducation  and  the  eating 
of  Christ's  body  by  the  unworthy,  but  it  is  careful  not 
to  say  a  word  against  the  Augsburg  Confession,  although 
it  is  evidently  out  of  harmony  with  the  Unaltered  Augs- 
burg on  the  Lutheran  cultus.* 

E — THE  YEAR  1563 

The  draft  of  the  catechism  was  finished  by  the  end 
of  1562,  so  that  in  January  of  the  next  year  a  synod  of 
the  Palatinate  was  held  to  adopt  it.  Two  accounts  of 
this  synod  have  recently  turned  up,  one  at  Weimar,  the 
other  at  Bremen.     But  they  are  really  the  same  account, 

*  During  this  year,  Boquin  published  another  work,  a  "De- 
fense of  Melancthon,"  against  Hesshuss  and  Villegagnon.  It 
was  published  at  Geneva. 


l68  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

and  they  are  by  a  high-Lutheran.  The  synod  met  for 
eight  days  (January  11-17),  at  Heidelberg,  and  the  cate- 
chism was  adopted  and  subscribed  to.  At  this  synod 
answer  78,  of  our  catechism,  was  placed  in  it  instead  of 
answer  68,  of  Ursinus'  Shorter  catechism.  We  gave  the 
latter  so  a  comparison  can  be  made. 

But  do  the  bread  and  wine  become  the  real  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  ? 

No,  for  Christ  has  only  one  real  body,  which  was  born 
of  the  Virgin  Mary,  crucified  for  us,  dead,  buried,  risen 
again,  ascended  to  heaven,  and  is  now  there  at  the  right 
hand  of  God,  but  not  upon  earth  until  he  comes  again  to 
judge  the  quick  and  the  dead.* 

Then,  on  Sunday,  January  17,  the  synod  united  to- 
gether in  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  On  the 
i8th  the  Elector  called  the  synod  before  him  and  he  ad- 
dressed them  as  follows:  "We  have  been  informed  that 
you  have  given  the  catechism  your  unanimous  approval. 
This  pleases  me  very  much.  It  is  our  wish  that  you  will 
faithfully  adhere  to  it."  On  January  19  he  wrote  his 
preface,  published  in  the  catechism. 

About  the  same  time  that  the  catechism  appeared  a 
little  brooklet  also  appeared,  which  was  sometimes  pub- 
lished with  it,  and  whose  publication  is  very  significant. 
It  was  entitled  "Bread-breaking."  Who  the  author  was 
is  unknown,  but  its  outline  follows  the  outline  of  Erastus 
in  his  book  on  the  Lord's  Supper.  It  was  probably  pub- 
lished, because  of  all  the  novelties  that  Frederick  had  in- 
troduced, none  probably  met  with  as  much  opposition  as 
the  putting  away  of  the  wafer  at  the  Lord's  Supper.  So 
to  aid  the  introduction  of  bread-breaking,  this  booklet 
was  published.    For  the  Reformed  not  merely  used  bread 

*  During  this  synod  a  booklet  of  Bullinger's  was  scattered 

around. 


ELECTOR  FREDERICK'S  CONVERSION        169 

instead  of  wafers,  but  also  claimed  that  the  bread  must 
also  be  broken  in  order  to  fully  obey  Christ's  command. 
The  influence  in  favor  of  bread-breaking  must  have 
come  from  the  Churches  that  already  used  it.  It  is  sig- 
nificant that  none  of  them  were  Lutheran,  for  the  Luth- 
erans still  clung  to  the  wafer.  The  Churches  that  used 
bread  were  the  French  Reformed  Churches  and  the 
Church  of  Zurich.  So  Frederick  left  the  company  of  the 
Lutherans  entirely  when  he  introduced  bread-breaking, 
and  went  over  to  the  Reformed.  This  is  all  the  more  re- 
markable, for  bread-breaking  was  as  yet  not  by  any 
means  universally  introduced  among  the  Reformed.  Bern 
and  Basle  had  not  yet  introduced  it.  So  this  was  the 
most  prominent  sign  that  the  Palatinate  Church  had  gone 
over  to  the  Reformed.  The  publication  of  a  new  cate- 
chism could  have  been  easily  explained  away  and  so  could 
many  of  the  other  changes  in  cultus.  But  this  could  not, 
for  it  was  only  and  thoroughly  Reformed.  For  the  Re- 
formed were  peculiar  in  holding  that,  while  our  Lord  left 
many  things  open,  as  how  the  Lord's  Supper  should  be 
observed,  whether  sitting  or  standing,  or  when,  in  the 
morning  or  evening,  yet  he  had  specifically  commanded 
the  breaking  of  bread.  This  led  in  the  reformation  to  a 
long  controversy  with  the  Lutherans  about  bread-break- 
ing. The  proofs  given  in  the  booklet  are  that  Christ's 
disciples  broke  the  bread,  as  also  did  Paul,  and  that  it 
was  the  custom  of  the  early  Church  up  to  the  time  of 
the  introduction  of  the  mass.  The  breaking  of  the  bread 
is  the  special  reminder  of  how  Christ's  body  was  broken 
for  us.  But  there  was  still  another  reason  back  of  all 
this  that  Frederick  seems  to  have  had  in  mind.  In  his 
intense  opposition  to  papist  relics  in  the  Protestant 
Church,  especially  artolotry  or  the  worship  of  God  in 
the  wafer,  this  breaking  of   the  bread  broke  up   their 


170  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

bread-god,  and  dispelled  the  magical  idea  connected  with 
the  Catholic  rite.  Hesshuss,  in  his  "Warning  against  the 
Heidelberg  catechism,"  attacks  this  booklet,  as  did 
Flacius,  in  his  attack  on  the  catechism. 

These  two  books,  the  Heidelberg  catechism  and  the 
Breaking  of  Bread,  completed  the  introduction  of  the  Re- 
formed faith  into  the  Palatinate,  although  another  book, 
by  Boquin,  ought  to  be  noted, — namely,  "The  Canons 
by  which  the  Covenant  in  the  Words.  'This  is  my  body,' 
is  defended."  At  its  end  is  a  part  about  the  breaking  of 
bread. 

But  while  Frederick  was  thus  virtually  Reformed, 
he  was  not  yet  officially  so.  He  still  claimed  to  be  an  ad- 
herent of  the  Altered  Augsburg  Confession.  Whether, 
with  his  Reformed  tendencies,  he  could  claim  the  protec- 
tion of  that  symbol  was  now  the  problem  in  Germany.  It 
was  clear  that  Zwinglianism  could  not  do  so.  But  since 
Zwingli's  time  a  new  system  of  doctrine  had  come  up, 
called  Calvinism,  which  took  a  midway  position  on 
the  Lord's  Supper,  between  the  Zwinglian  and  the 
Lutheran.  Zwinglianism  made  the  bread  and  wine  only 
symbols,  and  the  Lutheran  rnade  Christ's  body  and  blood 
present  in  the  elements  of  bread  and  wine.  Calvin  taught 
that  the  bread  and  wine  were  more  than  symbols,  that, 
like  the  Lutheran,  there  was  a  presence  of  Christ  in  the 
elements ;  but  that  it  was  a  spiritual  presence,  not  a  bodily, 
as  the  Lutherans  hold.  Christ's  body  was  in  heaven,  but 
the  Holy  Ghost  mediated  the  influence  of  that  body  to 
the  believer  at  the  Supper.  Now,  the  question  was  up, 
could  this  new  doctrine  be  held  in  Germany  under  the 
Augsburg  Confession?  The  Catholics  and  high-Luth- 
erans said  no,  even  though  the  Altered  Augsburg,  by  its 
revised  verbiage,  allowed  room  for  it.  The  controversy 
finally  went  up  as  high  as  the  German  diet  of  1566,  where 


ELECTOR  FREDERICK'S  CONVERSION 


171 


Frederick  made  his  famous  defense,  after  which  the 
Heidelberg  catechism  was  permitted  in  Germany.  It  was 
simply  tolerated,  not  legally  adopted.  The  Reformed 
faith  was  not  legally  recognized  in  Germany  until  at  the 
close  of  the  Thirty  Years'  War.  But  after  1566,  when,  at 
the  diet  of  Augsburg,  the  Reformed  were  given  toleration, 
Frederick  was  free  to  declare  himself  Reformed,  and  he 
officially  became  Reformed.  He  never,  as  far  as  we 
know,  set  aside  the  Altered  Augsburg.  Indeed,  after  his 
death,  when  the  "Harmony  of  the  Reformed  Creeds,"  in 
1588,  was  drawn  up  by  the  Reformed  of  Germany,  the 
Augsburg  was  included  in  it.  But  as  Ursinus  intimates 
in  one  of  his  last  lettters,  it  was  gradually  laid  on  the 
shelf  for  the  better  creed,  the  Heidelberg  catechism.  For 
the  Heidelberg  catechism  is,  in  several  points,  superior 
to  the  Augsburg  Confession. 

1.  The  Augsburg  Confession  consists  of  twenty-one 
articles  or  chapters  on  theology,  and  after  that  rejects 
in  seven  articles  the  abuses  of  the  Catholic  church.  It 
was  a  theological  treatise.  The  Heidelberg  catechism 
was  better  adapted  for  practical  use. 

2.  The  Heidelberg  catechism  contains  some  import- 
ant doctrines  left  out  of  the  Augsburg,  as  for  instance, 
the  Bible  as  the  rule  of  faith  (answers  19  and  21).  It 
also  omits  some  papistical  elements  of  the  Augsburg,  as 
confession  and  the  calling  of  the  Lord's  Supper  the  mass. 

3.  The  Heidelberg  catechism,  in  its  emphasis  on  the 
atoning  death  of  Christ,  which  is  its  centre,  completes  the 
Lutheran  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  of  the  Augs- 
burg. Though  justification  by  faith  is  considered  the 
great  peculiarity  of  Lutheranism,  yet  the  Lutherans  never 
completed  that  doctrine  as  Calvin  did  ethically  and  also 
doctrinally  by  the  doctrines  of  election  and  perseverance  of 
saints.    The  fact  is  the  Reformed  doctrine  of  justification 


172  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

is  nearer  to  the  early  Lutheran  than  the  Lutheran,  after 
they  had  gotten  into  the  controversies.  And  nowhere  is 
justification  more  fully  and  beautifully  and  completely 
given  than  in  the  Heidelburg,  answer  60.  The  truth  is 
the  Heidelberg  catechism  has  in  it  the  flavor  of  the  early 
Lutheranism,  and  that  is  what  makes  it  live  in  the  hearts 
ot  so  many  Germans. 


CHAPTER  II 

IS  THERE  A  MELANCTHONIAN-CALVINISTIC  THEOLOGY 

The  Opinion,  given  by  Melancthon,  in  1559,  to  Elec- 
tor Frederick  III,  suggests  the  question  at  the  head  of 
this  chapter.  The  view  that  there  was  a  Melancthonian- 
Calvinistic  theology  was  prominent  in  our  Church  about 
fifty  years  ago,  and  was  emphasized  by  Rev.  Drs.  Schaff, 
Nevin,  and  others.  Dr.  Schaff*  speaks  of  the  Heidelberg 
catechism  as  giving  strong  expression  to  the  Calvinistic- 
Melancthonian  theory  of  the  spiritual  real  presence  in 
the  Lord's  Supper.  Rev.  Prof.  G.  W.  Richards,  D.D., 
in  his  recent  "Studies  on  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,"  fol- 
lows Dr.  Schaff,  and  says  that  Melancthon  came  into 
substantial  agreement  with  Calvin  on  the  sacraments. 
Although  he  hedges  somewhat  as  compared  with  Dr. 
Schaff,  by  saying  that  Melancthon  was  not  prepared  to 
profess  himself  a  Calvinist.  Rev.  Dr.  Harbaugh  goes 
farther  than  either  in  his  "Fathers  of  the  Reformed 
Church,"  Vol.  I,  where  he  places  Melancthon  among  the 
founders  of  the  Reformed  Church,  a  thing  which  the 
Germans  have  never  granted.  For  the  Reformed  of 
Germany,  in  their  series  of  the  "Fathers  and  Founders 
of  the  Reformed  Church,"  excluded  Melancthon  from 
the  list,  and  the  Lutherans  also  are  careful  to  include 
him  in  their  Lutheran  series  of  volumes  on  the  "Fathers 
of  the  Lutheran  Church."  But  this  view  that  Calvin  and 
Melancthon  met  on  the  subject  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
was  the  view  of  the  Mercersburg  School  of  Theology, 

*The  "Swiss  Reformation."  1892,  page  669. 
173 


174  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

whose  aim  sometimes  seems  to  have  been  to  prove  that 
our  Church  was  a  half  Lutheran  Church.* 

Some  of  the  theologians  of  Germany  were  appealed 
to  as  favoring  this  view,  notably  Heppe  and  Galle.  But 
a  far  larger  number  of  leading  authorities  oppose  this 
view,  as  Lipsius,  Landerer,  Nitsch,  Herrlinger,  Jacoby 
and  Seeborg.  The  Herzog  or  Hauck  Real-Encyclopaedia 
of  Theology,  which  has  been  the  great  theological  stand- 
ard, uniformly  opposes  this  view.  The  whole  subject  is 
a  large  one,  and  we  can  only  give  the  merest  outline  of 
it  here.  It  is  also  made  somewhat  more  difficult  because 
of  Melancthon's  changing  views  on  the  Lord's  Supper, 
as  shown  between  the  original  Augsburg  Confession  and 
the  Altered  Augsburg  Confession.  For,  between  these 
two  confessions,  it  is  undoubted  that  Melancthon  changed 
his  views  on  the  Lord's  Supper.  But  did  he  change 
them  enough  so  as  to  agree  with  Calvin  on  that  doctrine  ? 
Galle,  whose  work,  "Melancthon's  Theology,"  was  pub- 
lished in  1840,  gives  perhaps  the  clearest  outline  in 
favor  of  a  Melancthonian-Calvinistic  theology.  He  at- 
tempts to  prove  it : 

1.  In  his  formulas,  Melancthon  speaks  of  the  pres- 
ence of  Christ,  but  not  of  the  real  presence  of  the  body 
of  Christ. 

2.  He  declares  himself  with  the  greatest  decidedness 
against  the  doctrine  of  ubiquity. 

3.  In  his  letters,  he  attacks  the  high-Lutheran  doc- 
trine as  artolotry. 

It  is,  however,  to  be  noticed  that  there  is  a  difference 
in  kind  between  these  arguments.  The  first  is  positive, 
the  last  two  are  negative,  and  tell  what  he  does  not  be- 
lieve.    They   are,   therefore,   inferential.     They   do   not 

*  See  my  "History  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  the  United 
States  in  the  Nineteenth  Century,"  pages  512-517. 


MELANCTHONIAN-CALVINISTIC  THEOLOGY  175 

necessarily  prove  that  Melancthon  held  to  only  a  spiritual 
presence.  The  first  is  the  line  of  argument  on  which  the 
question  must  mainly  be  decided.  For  that  takes  up 
the  crux  to  the  whole  question, — namely,  what  was  the 
relation  of  the  body  of  Christ  to  his  presence  in  the 
elements? 

For  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  divides  itself 
into  two  parts ;  first,  its  relation  to  Christ,  and  second, 
its  relation  to  the  participant.  It  is  with  the  former  that 
we  are  here  concerned.  And  even  this  is  two-sided,  as 
viewed  from  the  human  or  the  divine  side.  The  ques- 
tion was  not  what  was  the  relation  of  the  bread  and 
wine  to  the  supernatural  in  the  sacrament.  That  was 
the  human  side  of  it.  It  is  with  the  other,  the  divine 
side  of  the  sacrament,  that  we  have  to  do, — with  its 
relation  not  to  the  elements,  but  to  the  body  of 
Christ.  The  question  was,  how  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  are  related  to  the  real  presence  and  activity  of  the 
sacrament.  The  Catholics  and  Lutherans  put  the  body 
of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  though  they  differed  in 
its  relation  to  the  elements ;  the  Catholics  making  the 
elements  change  into  the  body,  the  Lutherans  not.  Both 
put  the  body  in  the  Lord's  Supper ;  but  the  Reformed,  as 
Calvin,  put  it  in  heaven.  That  was  the  difference.  Cal- 
vin's view  was  that  we  are  to  lift  our  minds  by  faith  up 
to  heaven,  where  Christ  is,  and  then  the  spiritual  influ- 
ence of  that  body  would,  like  the  rays  of  the  sun,  stream 
forth  on  us  on  earth.  Where  did  Melancthon  stand? 
Did  he  hold  that  Christ's  body  was  on  earth  in  the  sac- 
rament. Of  this  there  is  no  question  in  his  earlier  years, 
when  he  agreed  with  Luther.  What  did  he  hold  in  his 
later  years?  Did  he  differ  from  Luther  far  enough  to 
be  Reformed,  for  between  Lutheran  and  Reformed 
views  there  are  many  shades  of  meaning. 


176  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

In  his  Opinion  to  Frederick  he  does  not  state  anything 
except  negatively  on  this  point.  His  main  contention 
was  not  a  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
but  the  proposition  of  a  formula  that  would  unite  the 
Church  of  the  Palatinate.  This  we  must  keep  in  mind. 
He  gave  what  seems  to  have  been  a  union  formula. 
This  was  not  necessarily  Lutheran,  for  he  had  already 
proposed  a  revised  statement  in  his  Altered  Augsburg 
Confession,  which  was  large  enough  to  give  room  for 
the  Reformed.  So  that  his  statement  in  this  Opinion 
is  not  conclusive  about  his  view  on  the  Lord's  Supper, 
except  that  he  was  against  the  high-Lutherans.  The 
Opinion  shows  he  opposed  ubiquity,  as  of  Hesshuss  and 
the  Lutherans  of  Bremen.  But  that  was  only  a  negative 
argument.  Opposition  to  ubiquity  did  not  necessarily 
mean  the  absence  of  Christ's  body  from  the  sacrament. 
Ubiquity  was  extensive,  the  other  was  intensive.  Viewed 
from  the  Reformed  standpoint,  the  denial  of  ubiquity 
would  seem  to  exclude  the  presence  of  Christ's  body 
in  the  Lord's  Supper.  But  to  one  coming  from  the 
Lutheran  standpoint  ( for  their  perspective  was  different, 
as  we  shall  in  a  moment  show),  there  was  nothing  contra- 
dictory about  it.  The  Lutheran  was  so  obsessed  with 
the  idea  of  the  local  presence  of  Christ's  body  at  the 
sacraments,  that  to  him  ubiquity  was  not  necessary. 
Let  us  then  turn  from  the  Opinion  to  the  crux  of  the 
whole  matter,  the  statements  of  Melancthon  about  the 
presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  Here  it  is  to 
be  noticed  that  there  was  one  expression  that  Melancthon 
almost  constantly  used, — "Christus  adest"  (Christ  is 
present). 

What  did  he  mean, — that  Christ  was  bodily  present 
or  only  spiritually  present.  Was  that  presence  only  a 
figure  or  a  reality.     We  may  take  time  to  give  only  one 


MELANCTHONIAN-CALVINISTIC  THEOLOGY  177 

instance.*  The  Frankford  Recess,  given  only  a  few 
years  before  his  death,  says  Christ  is  truly  and  essentially 
present  and  is  given  ("darreicht,"  given  out)  to  Chris- 
tians. What  did  he  mean  by  truly  and  essentially  pres- 
ent. The  word,  "truly,"  may  mean  "really"  over  against 
an  imaginary  presence;  although  the  Lutherans  put  a 
higher  meaning  into  the  phrase.  But  the  word  "essen- 
tially" is  significant.  We  must  remember  that  in  the 
reformation  they  still  used  the  Latin  terminology.  Since 
Kant  made  the  distinction  between  the  thing  in  itself  and 
its  accidents,  such  words  as  "essence"  and  "substance" 
have  been  idealized.  But  in  reformation  times  those 
words  were  uniformly  used  in  the  Latin  or  Romish  sig- 
nificance, as  referring  to  essence,  to  substance  in  a  ma- 
terial sense.  Christ  was  present  as  to  his  essence.  What 
was  his  essence?  It  was  his  divine-human  person.  This 
would  bring  in  the  body  of  Christ  as  present  in  the  Sacra- 
ment. Herrlinger  says :  "Melancthon  holds  to  a  contact 
which  goes  out  beyond  mere  spiritual  activity,  the  con- 
tact of  the  soul  with  the  glorified,  yet  living  Redeemer, 
who  is  near  to  us  bodily  in  the  Lord's  Supper."  Lipsius 
says:  "Melancthon  held  to  the  objective  presence  of  the 
whole  divine-human  person  of  Christ."  Jacoby  says : 
"Melancthon  held  to  the  unconditional  real  presence  of 
Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper  and  rejected  a  subjective 
moral  presence  of  Christ,  which  the  Swiss  inclined  to." 
But  let  us  not  merely  examine  his  words  so  as  to 
get  his  position.  It  is  necessary  to  go  down  below  mere 
words,  and  get  at  the  philosophical  position  from  which 
he  viewed  matters.  And  here  it  is  to  be  carefully  not- 
iced that  the  Lutheran  standpoint  was  essentially  differ- 
ent  from   the   Reformed.     The   Lutheran   philosophical 

*  See    Herrlinger's   "Theologie    Melancthon,"   pages    156-162, 
for  others. 

12 


178  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

stanpoint  was,  the  likeness  of  the  divine  and  human, — 
a  tendency  toward  their  unity.  The  Reformed  was,  the 
contrast  between  them, — a  tendency  toward  their  anti- 
thesis. Now  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  Melancthon, 
having  been  a  Lutheran,  approached  the  whole  subject 
from  the  Lutheran  standpoint,  which  had  been  his  from 
the  beginning.  Calvin  came  to  his  position  from  the 
Reformed  side.  Now  two  men  may  express  themselves 
in  the  same  words;  and  yet  coming  from  different 
standpoints,  really  hold  different  views,  because  they 
are  only  following  out  their  previous  positions.  It  is 
possible,  for  instance,  in  using  the  same  word,  that  one 
person  may  lean  to  the  material  and  the  other  to  the 
spiritual  meaning  of  it,  or  the  one  to  the  real  and  the 
other  to  the  figurative  meaning.  And  so  it  was  possible 
here,  for  the  one  to  emphasize  divinity  and  the  other 
humanity.  This  predisposition  must  be  allowed  for. 
Now,  remembering  that  Melancthon  came  to  his  later 
views  on  the  Lord's  Supper  from  a  Lutheran  standpoint, 
is  there  any  statement  anywhere  that  he  ever  gave  that 
up?  There  is  none.  On  the  other  hand,  is  there  any 
statement  that  Melancthon  ever  passed  over  to  the  Cal- 
vinistic  view,  which  tended  to  separate  the  divine  and 
human  in  Christ,  and  which  placed  the  humanity  in 
heaven,  while  his  divinity  was  on  earth?  On  this  point 
there  is  a  general  agreement, — Melancthon  made  no  such 
statement.  On  the  contrary,  Melancthon  was  careful 
to  state  that  in  the  Lord's  Supper  there  was  not  merely 
a  spiritual  influence,  but  something  more, — namely,  a 
bodily.  There  is  not  a  single  line,  says  Professor  Rich- 
ard in  his  "Life  of  Melancthon,"  to  show  that  he  en- 
dorses Calvin's  view  of  a  glorified  body  and  communion 
in  heaven,  to  which  the  believer's  soul  is  lifted  by  faith." 
He  held  that  the  communion  takes  place  on  earth  in  con- 


MELANCTHONIAN-CALVINISTIC  THEOLOGY  179 

nection  with  the  eating  and  drinking.  Herrlinger  says 
in  "Hauck's  Encyclopaedia,"  Melancthon's  view  was,  that 
Chirst  is  not  only  present,  according  to  the  spirit  as  in 
the  Gospel,  but  he  also  communicates  himself  according 
to  his  substantial  foundation  of  life.  Seeborg  says,  "he 
distinctly  maintains  the  bodily  presence  of  Christ." 
These  two  views  are  so  contradictory  that  they  can  not 
be  united  so  as  to  form  one  theology.  For  the  Calvin- 
istic  excludes  the  presence  of  Christ's  body  from  earth, 
the  Melancthonian  includes  it.  Now  the  body  of  Christ 
was  either  here  on  earth,  or  it  was  not.  To  this  Melanc- 
thon  said  yes,  Calvin  said  no.  Now  how  can  these  be 
united  into  one.  They  are  contradictory  and  thus  show 
the  contradictoriness  of  the  Melancthonian-Calvinistic 
Theology.  This  contradiction  is  so  great  that  the  attempt 
to  unite  them  runs  into  an  absurdity. 

But  there  is  still  another  aspect  of  this  question. 
When  we  look  at  IMelancthon's  doctrine  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  not  merely  in  its  basal  principle  or  philosophy, 
but  in  its  relation  to  other  doctrines,  what  is  the  result? 
Here  the  prominent  Lutheran  doctrine  of  justification 
comes  into  prominence.  Here  the  relation  of  the  Melanc- 
thonian and  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
to  justification  is  entirely  different.  According  to  Melanc- 
thon,  the  Lord's  Supper  is  an  element  in  our  salvation. 
According  to  Calvin,  the  salvation  is  already  completed 
and  the  main  object  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  the  feeding 
or  nourishing  of  the  soul.  According  to  Melancthon, 
the  Lord's  Supper  is  that  part  of  the  forgiveness  which 
completes  justification.  According  to  Calvin,  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  the  pledge  of  the  justification  which  has 
already  taken  place.  According  to  Melancthon,  faith 
as  justifying  completes  itself  in  the  Lord's  supper;  ac- 
cording to  Calvin,  the  Lord's  Supper  is  based  on  the 


l8o  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

union  already  accomplished.  According  to  Melancthon, 
the  Lord's  Supper  was  the  completion  of  the  mystical 
union  with  Christ, — the  completion  of  faith  by  a  real 
substantial  life-union  with  Christ.  According  to  Calvin, 
that  life-union  had  been  already  accomplished.  Melanc- 
thon  tends  to  make  the  Lord's  Supper  the  completing  of 
a  saving  ordinance.  Calvin  made  it  a  sealing  ordinance 
of  a  salvation  already  accomplished.  There  was,  there- 
fore, a  signal  diflference  on  this  point,  which  leads  to 
large  implications.  For  the  two  views  are  really  differ- 
ent, and  they  cannot  be  united  into  one  theology.  The 
one  makes  it  a  saving  ordinance,  the  other,  a  sealing 
ordinance.  But  an  ordinance  cannot  be  both  saving  and 
sealing  at  the  same  time.  The  one  precludes  the  other. 
The  sealing  distinguished  it  from  the  saving.  If  the 
ordinance  is  saving,  there  is  no  need  of  a  seal,  for  it 
saves  in  itself  without  the  seal.  The  sealing  is  not  neces- 
sary. Again,  the  sealing  excludes  the  saving.  The  seal- 
ing looks  upon  the  person  as  already  saved,  before  the 
ordinance  is  administered.  The  mistake  of  the  Catholic 
Church  was,  that  she  tried  to  unite  the  two  in  one  ordi- 
nance and  only  brought  confusion  in  the  idea  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Reformed  were 
always  clear  in  emphasizing  the  distinction.  Calvin's 
view  in  regard  to  them  was  clear, — the  Lord's  Supper  was 
sealing.  While  Melancthon,  on  the  other  hand,  made  it 
the  completion  of  the  saving  ordinance.  These  two 
views  are  not  contradictory  as  the  last  one  noted  above. 
But  they  are  opposites, — contrasts,  and  cannot  be  united 
into  one  so  as  to  make  a  Melancthonian-Calvinistic  the- 
ology. 

From  this  survey  it  can  easily  be  seen  what  were 
the  differences  of  Melancthon's  and  Calvin's  doctrine  of 
the  sacrament.     It   is  evident  that   they  did  not  agree 


MELANCTHONIAN-CALVINISTIC  THEOLOGY  i8i 

on  these  two  essential  points. 

Let  us  now  turn  from  Melancthon  himself  to  the 
Melancthonians  or  Philipists,  as  they  were  then  called. 
They  reflected  Melancthon's  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. They  became  prominent,  especially  at  two  places 
in  the  sixteenth  century,  in  Hesse  and  in  Saxony. 

The  Hessian  theologians  (1563)  took  decided  ground 
against  the  Heidelberg  catechism.  They  opposed  it,  es- 
pecially on  two  points.* 

1.  That  it  holds  that  the  real  body  of  Christ  is  in 
heaven  and  it  therefore  cannot  be  communicated  and 
received  on  earth. 

2.  That  it  holds  that  "the  right  hand  of  God"  is  a 
place  and  not  a  quality. 

Their  objection  was  reaffirmed  in  1566.* 
This   objection   emphasizes  the   first   point   we  have 
mentioned. 

More  interesting  perhaps  is  the  action  of  the  Melanc- 
thonians at  Wittenberg,  about  1571.  They  had  pub- 
lished, what  was  called  by  their  enemies,  a  Crypto-Cal- 
vinistic  catechism,  which  used  the  Melancthonian  phrase, 
that  "Christ  is  truly  and  substantially  present."  They  also 
published  the  Dresden  Consensus,  which  says  that  "He 
communicates  His  true  body  and  blood  present  there, — 
truly,  livingly,  substantially  and  certainly  present."  This 
would  seem  to  teach,  if  anything  can  do  so,  the  real  ac- 
tive presence  of  Christ's  body  in  the  sacrament.  After 
its  publication,  a  significant  episode  occurred.  The  Elec- 
tor of  Saxony,  who  always  wanted  to  be  a  true  Lutheran, 
sent  a  copy  of  the  Dresden  Consensus  to  the  Reformed 
Count   John    Casimir   of   the   Palatinate   at   Heidelberg. 

*  See   Heppe's  "History  of  German   Protestantism,"  Vol. 
n  ;  "Studien  unci  Kritiken,"  1867,  page  31. 

*  See  Leuchter's  "Antiqua  Hessorum  Fides,"  1607. 


l82  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

What  did  the  latter  do  but  send  him  a  letter,  requesting 
him  to  ask  his  theologians  in  what  it  differed  from  the 
Heidelberg  catechism.  The  Elector  of  Saxony  gave  his 
query  to  three  bodies,  the  consistory  of  Meissen  and  the 
university  faculties  of  Leipsic  and  Wittenberg,  which 
were  Melancthonian.  All  of  them  declared  that  they 
were  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Heidelberg  catechism 
on  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  Meissen  deliverance  de- 
clared their  doctrine  to  be  that  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession and  of  Luther,  that  "Christ  was  present,  truly, 
livingly,  really  and  certainly,"  as  Luther's  catechism 
declared,  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  His  true  body  and 
blood.  The  Wittenberg  faculty  objected  to  the  Heidel- 
berg catechism,  that  it  was  not  clear  on  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per as  was  their  Dresden  Consensus,  or  their  teacher, 
Melancthon  had  been.  The  Leipsic  theologians  objected 
to  the  Heidelberg  catechism  that  its  statements  were 
general,  not  specific,  as  in  the  Lutheran  creeds.  They 
held  with  Luther's  catechism  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is 
"to  eat  and  drink  the  body  of  Christ,  which  is  given 
("darreicht,"  reached  out  to  us)  with  the  elements.  But 
the  Elector  of  Saxony  does  not  seem  to  have  been  satis- 
fied, because  the  pressure  of  the  high-Lutherans  around 
him  was  very  great.  So  Stoessel,  who  (as  we  have 
seen)  had  been  a  high-Lutheran  at  Heidelberg,  in  1560, 
but  was  at  this  time  a  Melancthonian  in  Saxony,  drew 
up  a  statement,  in  which  he  shows  that  the  Dresden  Con- 
sensus differs  from  the  Heidelberg  catechism ;  the  main 
point  being,  that  the  Lutherans  taught  that  "the  real  and 
true  body  of  Christ  was  really  distributed  and  enjoyed." 
All  this  shows  that  the  Melancthonians  held  that  Christ's 
body  was  present  in  the  Lord's  Supper. 

In  all  this,  the  objections  of  the  Hessian  as  well  as 
the  Saxon  theologians  are  based  on  our  first  point, — 


MELANCTHONIAN-CALVINISTIC  THEOLOGY  183 

the  real  and  essential  difference  of  Melancthon  and  Cal- 
vin in  their  philosophical  implications.  Our  opponents 
may  try  to  parry  this  argument  by  the  statement  that 
these  Saxons  and  Hessians  later  went  over  to  the  Re- 
formed faith.  But  that  is  not  exactly  correct.  For  only 
one  of  the  three  Saxon  bodies  became  Reformed,  the 
faculty  of  the  university  of  Wittenberg.  And  they  did 
not  do  so  till  forced  out.  But  it  is  to  be  remembered 
that  the  university  of  Leipsic  and  the  cpnsistory  of 
Meissen  remained  Lutheran.  And  as  to  Hesse,  when 
Hesse  became  Reformed,  forty  years  later,  the  leaders  in 
1563,  who  drew  up  the  Opinion,  had  all  died  by  that 
time,  and  died  as  good  Lutherans. 

Now,  in  view  of  these  facts,  it  is  hard  to  see  how 
Dr.  Schaff  could  say  that  the  Heidelberg  catechism  was 
Calvinistic-Melancthonian.  Both  the  Hessian  and  Saxon 
theologians,  who  were  Melancthonians,  objected  to  its 
doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  Melancthon's  statements 
can  never  be  harmonized  with  the  47th  and  76th  an- 
swers of  the  Heidelberg  catechism,  which  place  Christ's 
body  in  heaven.  The  truth  is,  that  this  Melancthonian- 
Calvinistic  theology  is  a  figment,  built  up  on  contradic- 
tions and  opposites,  so  as  to  be  absurd.  It  is  without 
a  foundation  of  proof  when  it  is  closely  analyzed.  It 
needs  to  be  given  up  with  other  figments  that  have  long 
played  a  part  in  history,  such  as  the  divine  right  of 
kings;  or  in  theology,  as  that  the  atonement  was  a 
satisfaction  to  the  devil.  Melancthon  and  Calvin  never 
came  close  enough  on  the  Lord's  Supper  that  their  doc- 
trine can  be  united.  All  the  arguments  of  the  Melanc- 
thonian-Calvinistic  adherents  have  been  based  on  the 
merest  inferences.  And  as  the  Mercersberg  theology  is 
now  being  given  up,  this  doctrine,  which  was  one  of  its 
foundations,  needs  also  to  be  decently  buried. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  DEFENCE   OF   THE   HEIDELBERG   CATECHISM    BY 
ELECTOR  FREDERICK  III 

The  defence  of  the  Heidelberg  catechism,  by  Elector 
Frederick  HI,  was  the  climax  of  his  life.  Nothing  that 
he  had  done  before,  nothing  that  he  ever  did  afterward, 
approached  it  in  significance  and  grandeur.  There  he 
stood,  one  of  the  greatest  princes  of  the  German  empire, 
before  the  great  German  diet  and  captured  it,  though 
hostile,  by  his  eloquence  and  spirituality.  He  there  gained 
permission  for  the  use  of  his  catechism.  And  his  cate- 
chism has  had  a  wider  influence  and  produced  greater 
results  than  anything  else  that  he  did.  For  he  is  not 
remembered,  as  was  his  predecessor  (Otto  Henry)  or  his 
two  successors  (Frederick  IV  and  Frederick  V)  by  the 
splendid  buildings  he  built  in  the  castle  at  Heidelberg. 
There  is  nothing  at  Heidelberg  today  that  reminds  one 
of  him.  His  district  of  the  Palatinate  has  been  obliter- 
ated and  absorbed  in  other  duchies  and  counties.  He 
would  be  forgotten,  were  it  not  for  his  catechism.  But 
that  great  book  is  enough  to  give  him  earthly  immor- 
tality. And  the  greatest  and  noblest  act  of  his  life, 
when  he  rose  to  his  highest  height,  was  at  his  defense  of 
his  catechism  at  Augsburg  in  1566.  Though  this  diet 
was  less  important  than  that  at  Worms,  and  Frederick 
was  only  a  layman,  yet  the  scene  is  worthy  of  being 
placed  alongside  of  Luther's  magnificent  plea  at  the  diet 
of  Worms.  For  this  was  as  critical  a  time  for  the  Re- 
formed   Church   as    Worms    for   the   whole   Protestant 

184 


ELECTOR  FREDERICK'S  DEFENCE     185 

Church.  And  that  crisis  drew  from  Frederick  his  best 
powers.  That  great,  great  event  has  never  been  properly 
portrayed,  especially  in  English.*  So  especially  as  some 
things  about  it  have  been  left  in  a  hazy  light,  we  will 
here  study  this  magnificent  event  in  the  history  of  our 
catechism. 

The  storm,  that  had  been  gathering  ever  since  the 
publication  of  the  Heidelberg  catechism  early  in  1563, 
broke  around  Frederick's  head  three  years  later.  An 
effort  was  made  to  stay  the  growing  opposition  by  the 
holding  of  a  conference  at  Maulbronn,  in  1564.  But  it 
only  resulted  in  widening  the  breach  between  the  Palatin- 
ate and  the  Wurtemberg  divines,  as  it  revealed  more 
clearly  their  decided  difference  about  the  doctrine  of 
ubiquity.  To  the  early  opponents  of  the  catechism,  Duke 
Christopher  of  Wurtemberg  and  Duke  Wolfgang  of  Zwei- 
briicken,  were  now  added  a  number  of  Catholic  bishops 
who  claimed  that  Frederick  had  taken  away  their  en- 
dowments and  despoiled  their  churches.  So  finally  the 
Emperor,  Maximilian,  summoned  a  diet  to  meet  at  Augs- 
burg in  1566.  The  notice  of  the  diet  was  sent  out  Janu- 
ary 4,  1566,  and  gave  the  three  topics  to  be  discussed  at 
the  diet. 

1.  How  to  bring  the  Christian  religion  to  a  better 
understanding. 

2.  How  to  check  the  destructive  and  corrupting  sects. 

3.  How  the  Turks  might  be  checked. 

It  was  under  the  second  of  these  that  Frederick's 
case  came,  as  Zwinglianism  and  Calvinism  were  looked 

*  Would  that  some  painter  had  risen  to  paint  this  scene  at 
the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  as  the  companion  picture  to  Farel's  Call 
to  Calvin  in  Geneva  (1536),  the  most  dramatic  scene  in  Re- 
formed Church  history,  except,  perhaps,  Beza's  Defense  before 
the  French  Court,  at  Poissy,  in  1561. 


i86  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

upon  in  Germany  as  sects.  Frederick,  as  soon  as  he  had 
received  notice  of  the  call  for  a  diet,  began  to  realize 
the  danger  that  was  threatening  him  and  began  negotia- 
tions with  other  Protestant  princes  to  head  off  his  op- 
ponents. He  especially  urged  that  they  should  all  empha- 
size unity  and  not  division ;  and  that  they  should  unite 
in  order  to  strengthen  the  emperor  in  his  inclination 
toward  Protestantism. 

The  answers  he  received  were  various.  The  Land- 
grave of  Hesse  was  favorable.  But  all  his  efforts  with 
the  Dukes  of  Wurtemberg  and  Zweibriicken  were  of  no 
avail.  Frederick  went  to  the  trouble  to  take  a  journey 
into  Thuringia,  and  while  there  he  met  Elector  Augustus 
of  Saxony.  The  latter  had  before  been  unfriendly  to 
Frederick's  Calvinism,  for  he  prided  himself  on  his  Luth- 
eranism.  But  he  now  received  Frederick  in  a  very 
friendly  manner.  This  meeting  proved  to  be  of  the  great- 
est importance  at  the  diet,  for  without  doubt  it  was 
Elector  Augustus  of  Saxony  who  saved  Frederick  at  that 
diet.  Frederick  only  found  out,  through  his  negotiations, 
how  great  his  danger  was,  for  it  was  evident  that  the 
Dukes  of  Wurtemberg  and  Zweibriicken  were  moving 
heaven  and  earth  to  bring  about  an  agreement  among  the 
Protestant  princes,  by  which  Frederick,  because  of  his 
Calvinistic  novelties,  would  be  placed  outside  of  the  Augs- 
burg Peace.  He  was  in  danger  of  being  deposed  from 
his  electorate  as  Electors  John  Frederick  of  Saxony  and 
Herman  of  Cologne  had  been  before. 

The  danger  was  so  great  that  his  brother.  Count  Rich- 
ard, warned  him  not  to  go  to  the  diet  at  all,  but  to  be 
represented  by  his  statesmen  as  some  of  the  other  princes 
were.  But  such  timidity  was  foreign  to  Frederick.  He 
wrote  to  his  brother  a  letter  which  breathes  a  true  martyr 
spirit : 


ELECTOR  FREDERICK'S  DEFENCE     187 

"I  stand  in  the  comforting  hope  in  my  dear  and  true 
Father  in  heaven,  that  his  mighty  power  would  use  me 
as  an  instrument  to  pubhcly  confess  his  name  in  the  holy 
realm  of  the  German  empire  in  these  later  days,  not  only 
with  the  mouth,  but  in  deed  and  truth,  as  once  my  be- 
loved brother-in-law,  Duke  John  Frederick  of  Saxony, 
the  deceased  Elector,  has  also  done.  And  although  I  am 
not  so  presumptuous  as  to  compare  my  intellect  with  his, 
yet  I  also  know  that  the  same  God,  who  then  kept  him 
in  the  right  and  true  knowledge  of  His  Gospel,  still  lives 
and  is  so  mighty  as  to  keep  me  a  poor  and  simple  man; 
so  that  he  can  and  will  certainly  keep  me  by  His  Holy 
Spirit ;  even  though  matters  should  proceed  so  far  as  to 
cost  blood.  And  if  it  should  please  my  dear  Father  in 
Heaven  to  give  me  such  honor,  I  could  never  sufficiently 
praise  Him  for  it,  either  here  in  time  or  yonder  in  eter- 
nity." 

One  who  could  so  write  was  already  victorious.  And 
so  he  went  cheerfully  to  the  diet. 

The  diet  opened  on  March  25  with  great  splendor. 
Emperor  Maximilian,  to  the  surprise  of  the  Protestants, 
at  its  beginning  showed  strong  leanings  to  the  Catholic 
party  and  against  the  Protestants.  One  of  the  most  im- 
portant aspects  of  this  diet,  for  the  future  of  the  Heidel- 
berg catechism,  was  the  attitude  of  the  Emperor  Maxi- 
milian in  regard  to  this  case.  On  this  point  historians 
have  not  been '  in  agreement.  Hausser  and  Harbaugh 
make  him  out  as  mild  in  his  rule  low^ard  Protestants  and 
friendly  toward  Frederick.  But  Kluckhohn,  Frederick's 
biographer,  tells  a  different  story,  and  he  seems  to  be 
right, — that  Maximilian  was  very  bitter  against  Fred- 
erick's introduction  of  Calvinism  into  the  German  empire. 
It  has  been  suggested  that  from  what  Maximilian  had 
seen  of  the  Reformed  in  France  and  the  Netherlands,  he 
gained  the  impression  that  they  were  rebels,  and  he  did 
not  want  that  rebellious  spirit  to  be  imported  into  Ger- 


l88  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

many.  He  had  already  enough  trouble  without  it. 
Instinctively  he  seems  to  have  felt,  as  King  James  I,  of 
England,  later  expressed  it,  that  royalty  and  presbytery 
go  not  well  together, — that  aristocracy,  whether  in  Church 
or  state,  did  not  harmonize  with  the  republican  spirit  of 
the  Reformed.  But  whatever  may  have  been  his  reason, 
certain  it  is  that  he  was  the  leader  against  Frederick  in 
this  diet.  This  attitude  of  Maximilian  makes  Frederick's 
victory  at  the  diet  all  the  more  remarkable,  for  already 
it  seemed  very  doubtful,  with  the  princes,  Catholic  and 
Protestant,  against  him.  And  now  the  emporer's  attitude 
made  it  almost  impossible. 

Well,  where  did  Frederick  have  any  friends?  There 
were  only  two  among  the  German  princes.  But  one. 
Landgrave  Philip  of  Hesse,  was  not  present,  on  account 
of  his  age,  and  so  was  represented  by  deputies.  The 
other.  Elector  Augustus  of  Saxony,  was  present;  but  be- 
fore Frederick  arrived  ( for  Frederick  was  not  present  at 
the  opening  of  the  diet)  he,  too,  seems  to  have  been 
swept  along  by  Frederick's  enemies,  the  Dukes  of  Wurt- 
emberg  and  Zweibriicken,  who  used  every  effort  to  unite 
the  Protestant  princes  against  Frederick. 

It  was,  therefore,  high  time  for  his  arrival  when  Fred- 
erick at  last  came  to  Augsburg.  Already  these  two  Dukes 
had,  on  March  31,  opened  the  meeting  of  the  Evangeli- 
cal States,  as  the  Protestants  were  called,  with  their  plan 
that  in  their  official  statement  to  be  made  to  the  emperor, 
Frederick  was  not  to  be  permitted  to  subscribe  to  it,  be- 
cause they  did  not  consider  him  a  Lutheran.  But  it 
seems  that  the  arrival  of  Frederick  proved  somewhat 
of  a  check  to  them.  He  went  at  once  to  the  Elector  of 
Saxony,  and  stated  that  he  desired  to  subscribe  to  their 
declaration  to  the  Emperor.  When  Augustus  made  this 
known  to  the  Protestant  states  they  declared  that  he  must 


ELECTOR  FREDERICK'S  DEFENCE     189 

roundly  and  fully  declare  his  adherence  to  the  Lutheran 
doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  And  they  produced  a 
formula  that  they  required  him  to  sign.  But  at  this, 
Elector  Augustus  gave  expression  to  his  dissatisfaction. 
For  he  was  jealous  of  what  seemed  to  him  to  be  an  at- 
tempt of  Wurtemberg  to  control  everything.  Besides,  he 
had  brought  with  him  his  professor,  Peucer,  the  son-in- 
law  of  Melancthon,  who  continually  warned  him  against 
the  theologians  of  Wurtemberg,  that  they  were  not  sound 
Lutherans  because  they  were  introducing  the  new  doctrine 
of  ubiquity.  He,  therefore,  gave  expression  to  the 
thought  that,  if  they  were  going  to  shut  Frederick  out 
of  the  peace  because  he  introduced  the  new  doctrines  of 
Calvinism,  Wurtemberg  would  also  need  to  be  looked 
after  for  introducing  the  new  doctrine  of  ubiquity.  He, 
therefore,  declared  that  he  was  not  willing  to  have  Fred- 
erick shut  out.  There  may  have  been  another  reason,  a 
political  one,  why  Elector  Augustus  took  this  position. 
It  was  that  if  Frederick  was  deposed  as  an  Elector,  he 
did  not  know  where  this  would  stop.  His  predecessor, 
John  Frederick,  had  been  so  deposed.  And  perhaps  the 
thought  may  have  come  to  his  mind  that  after  they  had 
done  away  with  Frederick  for  his  Calvinism,  he  might 
be  the  next  one  to  be  deposed  for  his  Melancthonianism, 
which  was  not  at  all  popular  in  many  parts  of  Germany, 
especially  if  the  hot-headed  Duke  of  Wurtemberg  got 
control.  Besides  the  fact  that  this  deposition  of  Fred- 
erick would  be  done  by  a  Catholic  emperor,  was  putting 
too  much  power  into  their  hands,  which  they  might  use 
to  depose  all  Protestant  Electors.  He  seems  to  have  had 
more  foresight  than  any  of  the  Protestant  princes  there. 
But  whatever  his  reason,  he  held  back  from  setting  Fred- 
erick outside  the  Peace  of  Augsburg. 

When  all  this  was  made  known  to  Frederick,  he  ex- 


ipo  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

pressed  surprise  that  his  orthodoxy  should  be  questioned. 
He  made  a  reply  on  April  25  that  he  had  never  yet  re- 
jected the  Augsburg  Confession,  but  that  what  he  rejected 
was  the  new  doctrine  of  ubiquity  of  the  high-Lutherans, 
which  was  also  rejected  by  Saxony,  the  Mark,  Hesse, 
Denmark  and  other  Churches.  He  urged  the  Protestants 
not  to  allow  any  division  to  come  between  them  as  unity 
against  the  Catholics  was  so  greatly  needed.  As  to  his 
catechism,  it  was  not  opposed  to  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
but  like  it  was  based  on  the  Bible  and  the  ecumenical 
creeds  and  councils.  As  all  were  agreed  that  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  were  present  in  the  Lord's  Supper, 
the  strife  had  become  largely  a  matter  of  words.  If  he 
were  shut  out  it  would  be  an  injustice.  And  he  reminded 
them  that  the  hot  theological  leaders,  who  condemned 
one  prince  today,  would  condemn  another  tomorrow.  He 
especially  prayed  Elector  Augustus  to  prevent  a  division 
among  the  Protestants  at  that  diet.  Let  them  all  become 
united  in  a  deliverance  to  the  Emperor,  he  said,  and  their 
theological  differences  could  be  settled  later. 

This  able  plea  for  unity  still  further  won  Elector 
Augustus,  who  already  sympathized  with  Frederick 
against  ubiquity.  He,  therefore,  declared  that  he  was  op- 
posed to  any  ostracism  of  Frederick  or  the  insertion 
of  any  clause  condemning  Zwinglianism.  Thus  the  Prot- 
estant princes  were  not  able  to  come  into  unity  in  ostra- 
cizing Frederick.  Nevertheless,  the  two  Dukes  labored  to 
bring  it  about,  and  as  late  as  May  11  they  introduced 
a  paper  showing  that  Frederick's  doctrines  were  not  in 
accord  with  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and,  therefore, 
ought  not  to  be  permitted  in  Germany. 

But  before  they  attained  their  end  the  Emperor  him- 
self took  a  hand  in  the  matter.  The  Protestants  had 
failed  to  unite  in  isolating  Frederick.     What  they  could 


ELECTOR  FREDERICK'S  DEFENCE     191 

not  do,  the  Catholics  rose  up  to  do  in  another  way.  The 
bishop  of  Worms  and  the  chapters  of  Neuhaus  and  Sins- 
heim,  whose  property  Frederick  had  sequestered,  now 
brought  complaints  against  him.  What  capped  this  mat- 
ter was  that  a  weak  Lutheran  prince,  Margrave  Philibert 
of  Baden,  should  lend  himself  to  be  their  tool.  It  seems 
that  he,  with  Frederick,  ruled  the  principality  of  Spon- 
heim  in  western  Germany.  Both  had  introduced  Prot- 
estantism into  that  district,  but  Frederick  had  gone 
farther  than  Philibert,  and  had  cast  out  all  relics  of 
papacy,  as  altars,  etc.,  and  had  tried  to  introduce  the 
Palatinate  liturgy,  which  was  Reformed.  Against  the 
introduction  of  such  novelties,  Philibert  entered  complaint 
against  Frederick.  These  complaints  were  given  to  Fred- 
erick, and  he  was  required  to  give  an  answer  within  two 
days.  But  as  they  did  not  come  into  his  hands  until  the 
close  of  the  first  of  the  two  days,  he  had  very  little  time 
for  preparation. 

Then  Maximilian,  after  a  conference  with  the  Prot- 
estant States,  issued  a  decree  against  Frederick.  The  de- 
cree was  that  Frederick  must  give  up  the  endowments 
he  had  taken  from  the  chapters  of  Neuhaus  and  Sinz- 
heim,  and  set  aside  his  novelties  in  Sponheim.  The  decree 
also  ordered  that  all  the  Calvinistic  novelties,  which  he 
had  introduced  into  his  churches  and  schools,  were  to  be 
cast  out.  If  he  did  not  do  this  he  would  be  deposed, 
and  the  Elector's  hat  would  be  transferred  to  his  son, 
Lewis.  The  dukes  had  triumphed.  The  ban  of  the  em- 
pire was  about  to  be  placed  of  Frederick.  We  thus  see 
how  nearly  did  it  come  to  pass  that  the  Heidelberg  cate- 
chism should  be  utterly  suppressed  in  Germany.  Had  it 
been  done  we  never  would  have  had  our  catechism.  All 
this  reveals  the  tremendous  crisis  on  Frederick,  with  the 
probability  of  his  loosing  his  case.     Nothing  saved  him 


192 


THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 


and  his  catechism, — but  himself.  And  the  fourteenth  of 
May,  1566,  in  which  he  made  this  memorable  defense, 
will  ever  go  down  in  the  history  of  our  Church  as  one 
of  its  greatest  days. 

On  the  fourteenth  of  May  the  Elector  called  the  diet 
together  in  order  to  have  the  decree  against  Frederick 
ratified.  But  one  voice  was  lifted  up  against  the  pro- 
cedure. The  Elector  of  Saxony  declared  that  the  whole 
matter  was  done  in  too  much  haste.  He  did  not  publicly 
oppose  it,  though  he  thought  it  wrong.  Immediately  after 
this  Frederick  received  the  command  from  the  marshal  of 
the  realm  to  appear  before  the  Emperor.  He  came,  ex- 
pecting to  make  a  defense  against  the  charges  brought 
by  the  Catholics  and  Philibert.  But  instead  he  was  sum- 
moned to  defend  himself  before  a  decree  that  had  a  much 
wider  ranger  than  that, — namely,  his  threatened  deposi- 
tion. The  whole  method  was  a  violation  of  all  German 
custom.  What  most  agitated  Frederick  was  the  fact  that 
the  decree  was  not  first  published  before  the  Protestant 
States  before  it  was  acted  on  by  the  German  diet.  Such 
an  act  as  this  threatened  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the 
Protestants.  Another  impropriety  was  that  he  had  to 
make  his  defense,  not  only  before  the  Protestant  princes, 
but  before  the  Catholic  princes  also.  He  considered  that 
their  presence  prejudiced  the  case  as  they  were  all  against 
him.  Such  were  the  odds  against  him.  But  quickly  re- 
covering himself,  he  recognized  the  great  issue  at  stake. 
And  he  asked  for  a  brief  time  to  think  the  matter  over, 
only  remarking  as  he  went  out,  that  one  of  the  two  points 
in  the  decree  touched  his  conscience,  over  which  God 
alone  was  the  sovereign. 

Hardly  a  quarter  of  an  hour  had  elapsed  before  Fred- 
erick again  entered  the  diet-chamber,  attended  by  three 
of  his  leading  councilors.     He  was,  according  to  a  com- 


ELECTOR  FREDERICK'S  DEFENCE 


193 


mon  tradition,  also  attended  by  his  son,  John  Casimir, 
who  carried  a  Bible  after  his  father.  Frederick,  first  of 
all,  complained  that  he  had  been  condemned  unheard ; 
that  the  judgment  had  been  given  before  his  defense  had 
been  made.  He  had  confidence  in  his  imperial  majesty, 
that  what  was  accorded  to  the  lowest  criminal  would 
be  accorded  to  him.    He  then  continued : 

"Although  I  have  hitherto  not  been  able  to  come  to  a 
perfectly  clear  understanding  on  the  precise  points  to 
which  charges  have  been  presented  against  me  and  re- 
quisitions made;  yet  so  much  I  promise  myself,  from  the 
reasonableness  of  his  Imperial  Majesty,  that  he  will 
not  commence  the  process  by  the  execution  of  the  sen- 
tence, but  that  he  will  graciously  hear  and  weigh  the  de- 
fence I  shall  make;  which,  if  it  were  required,  I  would  be 
ready  to  make  undaunted  in  the  centre  of  the  market  place 
in  this  town.  So  far  as  matters  of  a  religious  nature  are  in- 
volved, I  confess  freely  that  in  those  things  which  concern 
the  conscience,  I  acknowledge  as  Master,  only  Him,  who 
is  Lord  of  Lords  and  King  of  Kings.  For  the  question 
here  is  not  in  regard  to  a  cap  of  flesh,  but  it  pertains  to  the 
soul  and  its  salvation,  for  which  I  am  indebted  alone  to 
my  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and  which,  as  his  gift, 
I  will  sacredly  preserve.  Therefore  I  cannot  grant  your 
Imperial  Majesty  the  right  of  standing  in  the  place  of 
my  God  and  Saviour. 

"What  men  understand  by  Calvinism  I  do  not  know. 
This  I  can  say  with  a  pure  conscience  that  I  have  never 
read  Calvin's  writings.  But  the  agreement  at  Frankford 
and  the  Augsburg  Confession  that  I  signed  at  Naumberg, 
together  with  the  other  princes,  of  whom  the  majority 
are  here  present,  in  this  faith  I  continue  firmly,  on  no 
other  ground  than  because  I  find  it  established  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  Nor  do  I 
believe  that  any  one  can  successfully  show  that  I  have 
done  or  received  anything  that  stands  opposed  to  that 
creed.  But  that  my  catechism,  word  for  word,  is  drawn, 
not  from  human,  but  from  divine  sources,  the  references 
that  stand  in  the  margin  will  show.    For  this  reason  also 

13 


194  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

certain  theologians  have  in  vain  wearied  themselves  in 
attacking  it,  since  it  has  been  shown  them  by  the  open 
Scriptures  how  baseless  is  their  opposition.  What  I  have 
elsewhere  publicly  declared  to  your  Majesty  in  a  full 
assembly  of  princes ;  namely,  that  if  any  one  of  whatever 
age,  station  or  class  he  may  be,  even  the  humblest,  can 
teach  me  something  better  from  the  Holy  Scriptures,  I 
will  thank  him  from  the  bottom  of  my  heart  and  be  readily 
obedient  to  the  divine  truth.  This  I  now  repeat  in  the 
presence  of  this  assembly  of  the  whole  empire.  If  there 
be  any  one  here  among  my  lords  and  friends  who  will 
undertake  it,  I  am  prepared  to  hear  him  and  here  are  the 
Scriptures  at  hand.  Should  it  please  your  Imperial  Ma- 
jesty to  undertake  this  task,  I  would  regard  it  as  the 
greatest  favor  and  acknowledge  it  with  suitable  gratitude. 
With  this,  my  explanation,  I  hope  your  Imperial  Majesty 
will  be  satisfied,  even  as  also  your  Imperial  Majesty's 
father,  the  Emperor  Ferdinand  of  blessed  memory,  was 
not  willing  to  do  violence  to  my  conscience,  however 
pleasant  it  would  have  been  to  him,  had  I  consented  to 
attend  the  popish  mass  at  the  imperial  coronation  at 
Frankford.*  Should  contrary  to  my  expectations,  my  de- 
fense and  the  Christian  and  reasonable  conditions  which 
I  have  proposed,  not  be  regarded  of  an  any  account,  I 
shall  comfort  myself  in  this  that  my  Lord  and  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ  has  promised  to  me  and  to  all  who  believe 
that  whatsoever  we  lose  on  earth  for  His  name's  sake,. 
we  shall  receive  an  hundred  fold  in  the  life  to  come." 

Thus  with  a  martyr-like  willingness  to  loose  all  for 
Christ,  he  closed  by  passing  out  of  the  domain  of  law, 
German  or  other,  into  the  realm  of  conscience,  which 
no  man  can  force.  The  Christian  courage,  the  deep  con- 
scientiousness and  the  great  spiritual  force,  revealed  in 
his  address,  made  a  most  profound  impression  on  the 
diet,  even  on  his  enemies.     It  is  too  much  to  say  that  he 

*  On  that  occasion  Frederick,  in  his  Puritanic  reaction  against 
everything  "papistic,"  refused  to  attend  the  Catholic  service 
of  the  coronation. 


ELECTOR  FREDERICK'S  DEFENCE 


195 


had  won  his  antagonists,  but  they  were  awed  for  the 
moment.  His  solitary  friend  was  quick  to  seize  the  psy- 
cological  moment.  For  Elector  Augustus  of  Saxony 
clapped  Frederick  on  the  shoulder  in  the  presence  of  the 
Emperor  and  the  assembled  princes,  and  said :  "Fritz, 
you  are  more  pious  than  all  of  us."  He  evidently  spoke 
what  all  felt  after  hearing  such  an  address.  And  Mar- 
grave Charles,  of  Baden,  the  brother-in-law  of  Frederick, 
who  did  not  belong  to  the  high-Lutheran  party,  at  the 
end  of  the  session,  gave  his  judgment  to  some  nobles 
standing  around  him,  "Why  do  we  attack  this  prince, 
when  he  is  more  pious  than  we  are?"  This  was  true, 
for  there  was  not  a  prince  in  all  that  diet  that  had  the 
spirituality  of  Frederick.  The  only  whisper  of  dissent 
that  broke  the  silence  after  the  address  was  from  the 
Cardinal  of  Augsburg,  who  reproached  Frederick  that 
he  had  called  the  mass  a  papal  abomination.  It  is  also  an 
interesting  fact  to  note,  that  when  Frederick  made  his 
address,  there  were  at  that  diet  and  may  have  been  pres- 
ent in  its  session,  two  men  who  saw  its  wonderful  im- 
pression with  very  different  feelings.  The  one  was  Hess- 
huss,  who  was  there  as  the  court-preacher  of  duke  of 
Zweibriicken,  who  saw  the  catechism  he  hated  permitted 
to  be  used  in  Germany.  The  other  was  Dr.  John  Crato, 
the  patron  of  Ursinus,  who  saw  the  catechism  composed 
by  his  protege,  thus  vindicated.  He  doubtless  felt  re- 
warded for  all  he  had  done  for  Ursinus  as  a  student. 

The  one  who  was  most  disappointed  seems  to  have 
been  the  Emperor  Maximilian  himself.  He  had  hoped 
that  the  whole  matter  could  be  quickly  and  easily  settled 
and  Frederick  ostracized.  He  was  greatly  dissatisfied 
with  Frederick's  defense  of  his  faith  and  of  his  cate- 
chism. So  as  the  enemies  of  Frederick  had  thus  far 
failed  to  gain  their  end,  other  tactics  were  now  resorted 


196  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

to.  Since  Frederick  claimed  to  adhere  to  the  Altered 
Augsburg  Confession,  the  Emperor  determined  to  get  the 
Protestant  States  to  declare  that  they  adhered  to  the  Un- 
altered Augsburg  Confession,  which  would  shut  Frederick 
out.  In  this  he  was  assisted  by  the  Dukes  of  Wurtem- 
berg  and  Zweibrucken. 

So  five  days  later  (Map  19)  the  Emperor  gathered 
the  councilors  of  Saxony  and  Brandenburg  (the  Elector 
of  Brandenburg  was  not  at  the  diet,  the  Elector  of 
Saxony  in  the  meantime  had  gone  hom.e),  together  with 
the  other  Protestant  princes.  He  reminded  them  of  what 
Frederick  had  said  in  his  defense,  that  he  adhered  to  the 
Augsburg  Confession  as  far  as  it  agreed  with  the  Bible.* 
And  he  asked  them  whether  they  still  recognized  Fred- 
erick as  one  of  their  number.  At  this  the  councilors  of 
Saxony  (for  Elector  Augustus  had  left  behind  him  one  of 
the  most  astute  members  of  the  diet,  a  councilor  named 
Lindamuth)  declared  that  they  were  without  instructions 
in  the  matter,  and  they  would  have  to  ask  the  decision  of 
their  master  on  a  matter  so  important.  And  they  thought 
that  in  view  of  its  far-reaching  effect,  the  other  Lutheran 
States,  some  of  them  not  present,  ought  to  be  heard  from. 
They  asked  for  delay,  which  the  Emperor  reluctantly 
granted.  But  the  Saxon  councilors  became  only  the  more 
convinced  that  the  act  of  the  Emperor  was  only  a  secret 
play  to  get  more  of  the  control  of  Germany  into  the 
hands  of  the  Catholics.  They  gained  the  support  of  the 
Hessian,  Baden  and  other  delegates,  who  finally  de- 
manded that  if  any  action  was  taken  against  Frederick  as 
a  Calvinist,  similar  action  ought  to  be  taken  against  those 
who  held  to  the  doctrine  of  ubiquity.  So  finally  the 
Protestants  presented  a  declaration  to  the  Emperor,  stat- 
ing that  Frederick  was  an  adherent  of  the  Augsburg 

*  This  was  exactly  the  position  that  Luther  used  to  take. 


ELECTOR  FREDERICK'S  DEFENCE     197 

Confession  on  the  doctrine  of  justification  and  other 
articles  of  faith.  And  as  to  the  one  article  about  the 
Lord's  Supper,  they  could  not  disown  him.  They  assured 
the  Elector  that  they  steadfastly  held  to  the  Augsburg 
Confession  and  would  not  allow  any  sect,  Zwinglian  or 
Calvinistic,  to  find  a  place  in  their  churches.  And  they 
were  unwilling  to  give  into  the  hands  of  others  (the  Cath- 
olics) who  did  not  belong  to  their  party,  the  decision 
as  to  who  was  recognized  as  an  adherent  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession.  For  under  this  pretence  there  might  be 
injustice  done  (to  Protestants).  And  finally  they  also  re- 
minded the  Catholics,  that  they  too  had  their  own  differ- 
ences among  themselves,  as  in  regard  to  justification  (re- 
ferring to  Cardinal  Contarini's  Evangelical  doctrine  of 
justification)  and  other  doctrines. 

Thus,  Frederick  was  saved  a  second  time.  But  the 
Emperor  was  not  satisfied.  He  still  labored  at  the  matter, 
and  on  May  23  he  again  tried  to  have  the  decree  of  May 
14  passed,  but  in  vain.  But  by  this  time  the  opposition 
to  it  had  solidified  into  a  group  who  steadfastly  opposed 
it.  Moreover,  the  repeated  actions  of  the  Emperor  only 
made  the  Saxon  councilors  the  more  suspicious  of  a 
Catholic  trick  in  it  all,  and  they  were  firmer  than  ever 
in  preventing  any  action  of  the  Protestants  against  Fred- 
erick. But  while  the  Evangelical  States,  through  the 
Saxon  councilors,  nullified  the  intrigues  of  the  Catholic 
party,  they  were  also,  on  the  other  hand,  greatly  exer- 
cised to  show  that  they  did  not  belong  to  those  who 
held  to  Frederick's  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  They, 
therefore,  on  May  23,  sent  for  Frederick,  and  through 
the  Saxon  councilors  gave  him  a  most  earnest  admonition 
about  his  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  To  this  Fred- 
erick answered  through  his  chancellor,  Probus,  that  as 
to  the  Lord's  Supper  he  taught  nothing  else  in  his  cate- 


198  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

chism  and  allowed  nothing  else  to  be  preached  than  what 
was  in  the  Augsburg  Confession.  So  finally,  on  the 
morning  of  May  24,  a  meeting  of  all  the  Protestant  States 
was  held.  Frederick  was  present,  attended  by  his 
chancellors  and  his  son,  John  Casimir.  He  was  there 
very  sharply  charged  that  what  was  taught  by  his  theo- 
logians in  his  churches  and  schools,  yes,  by  himself  at  the 
diet,  was  more  dangerous  than  anything  taught  by  Calvin 
and  Ecolampadius.  And  they  earnestly  asked  him  to  de- 
sist from  this,  at  least  until  a  conference  could  be  called. 

And  now  we  come  to  his  second  great  address  at  the 
diet.  He  agreed  with  their  last  declaration  to  the  Em- 
peror and  hoped  they  would  ever  carefully  guard  against 
division  and  would  always  remember  that  what  happened 
to  one  today  might  happen  to  another  tomorrow.  He 
then  again  declared  his  adherence  to  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession. But  that  as  to  the  Lord's  Supper  he  was  ready 
to  be  instructed  out  of  the  Bible.  Of  Calvin's  and 
Zwingli's  doctrines  he  knew  nothing  and  had  nothing  to 
do  with  them.  Then  he  took  the  Bible,  laid  it  on  the 
table  and  urged  all  who  were  present  to  teach  him  some- 
thing better  out  of  the  Bible.  But  no  one  among  them 
was  willing  to  enter  the  lists  (for  Frederick  was  evidently 
recognized  as  not  only  the  most  spiritually-minded  among 
them,  but  the  best  versed  in  the  Bible).  He  continued, 
therefore,  saying  that  if  he  were  reproached  for  having 
weakened  from  the  Augsburg  Confession,  he  could 
understand  it  in  no  other  way  than  that  he  had  gone  back 
on  his  subscription  to  that  Confession  (which  he  had 
before  denied). 

This  second  address  of  Frederick,  like  the  one  of 
May  14,  made  a  deep  impression  on  those  gathered  there, 
and  for  a  time  there  was  silence.  Then  they  all  united 
on  the  holding  of  another  conference  at  Erfurt,  in  order 


ELECTOR  FREDERICK'S  DEFENCE     199 

to  come  to  a  closer  union.  Frederick  to  the  last  refused 
to  drive  away  his  teachers  and  professors  without  any 
trial ;  he  also  declared  that  he  would  not  order  their  books 
to  be  destroyed.  And  he  finally  reminded  them  that  one 
could  as  little  dictate  order  in  his  realm  as  would  please 
the  others.  He  asked  whether  they  wanted  to  start 
strife  because  of  what  had  happened  at  this  diet.  None 
of  them  was  willing,  for  they  recognized  his  greatness 
of  mind  and  the  need  of  unity. 

Frederick  left  Augsburg  on  the  afternoon  of  that  day. 
but  before  he  left,  he  was  dismissed  graciously  by  the 
Emperor.  And  yet  Maximilian,  though  appearing  here 
friendly  to  Frederick,  was  none  the  less  determined  to 
exterminate  Calvinism  in  his  realm.  For  on  that  very  day 
he  expressed  himself  bitterly  against  the  Evangelical 
States  for  their  decision,  and  praised  Mecklenburg  for  its 
(high-Lutheran)  stand,  but  ridiculed  Lindamuth.  Fred- 
erick also  bade  good-bye  to  the  Spiritual  Electors,  who 
were  all  Catholic,  with  whom  was  the  papal  legate.  These, 
like  their  sovereign,  were  gracious  to  him.  Frederick 
then  gave  a  farewell  banquet  to  the  Protestant  princes 
and  left  Augsburg. 

He  returned  to  Heidelberg  on  the  Friday  before  Whit- 
Sunday.  He  was  welcomed  with  great  joy  by  his  people, 
some  of  whom  looked  upon  him  as  resurrected  from  the 
dead ;  for  the  rumor  had  repeatedly  come  that  he  was 
deposed ;  yes,  that  he  had  been  beheaded.  The  next  day 
he  publicly  joined  with  the  congregation  in  the  Holy 
Ghost  Church  at  Heidelberg  at  the  service  preparatory 
to  the  communion.  At  that  service  he  grasped  Olevianus' 
hand  and  i)ublicly  admonished  all  the  congregation  to  the 
same  faithfulness  as  had  animated  him.  On  that  Sunday 
he,  with  his  son  John  Casimir  and  the  court,  partook  of 
the  holy  communion. 


2O0  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

The  conference  was  held  at  Erfurt  the  next  Septem- 
ber, but  it  turned  out  to  be  a  small  one  and  was  of  little 
importance.  None  of  the  princes  were  present  in  person, 
and  only  a  few  sent  deputies.  The  opposition  against 
Frederick  seemed  to  have  burned  itself  out  and  a  reaction 
to  have  taken  place.  Even  Duke  Christopher  of  Wurtem- 
berg  had  had  his  eyes  opened  in  the  meanwhile  to  the 
great  danger  to  Protestantism  in  Germany,  that  came 
through  all  this  effort  against  Frederick.  And  he  in- 
structed his  delegates  against  voting  for  Frederick's  con- 
demnation. He  was,  however,  angered  by  the  attack 
made  there  on  ubiquity,  and  started  a  movement  toward 
calling  a  synod  of  all  Germany.  This,  fortunately  for 
Frederick,  found  little  favor  among  the  princes. 

And  so  Frederick  finally  gained  victory  for  his  cause, 
and  the  Heidelberg  catechism  was  allowed  to  be  tolerated 
in  Germany.  But  it  is  none  the  less  true,  as  Prof.  Boquin, 
the  oldest  professor  of  theology  in  his  university,  said  at 
in  his  funeral  address  on  Frederick,  "When  it  comes  to 
martyrdom,  to  joyful  willingness  to  suffer  for  the  right- 
eousness of  the  matter,  dare  we  not  truthfully  count 
this  pious  prince  among  the  martyrs  of  Christ."  And 
we  can  join  in  this  tribute.  For  Frederick,  like  Saul 
among  Israel,  rose  head  and  shoulders  above  all,  even 
the  Emperor,  at  this  diet.  He  was  the  uncrowned  king 
there.  And  we  can  not  thank  him  enough  for  this  de- 
fense, which,  as  almost  by  a  miracle,  preserved  to  us 
our  catechism.  All  honor  to  Frederick  for  his  deep 
spirituality  and  wonderful  eloquence  at  this  diet ! 


B 

CASPER  OLEVIANUS 


CHAPTER  IV 


THE   THREATENED    MARTRYDOM    OF   OLEVIANUS   AT   TREVES 

(1559) 

Before  Casper  Olevianus  became  one  of  the  authors 
of  our  catechism  he  had  to  pass  through  a  baptism  of 
fire.  When  our  catechism  so  beautifully  speaks  of  this 
life  as  a  "vale  of  tears," — a  via  dolorosa, — Olevianus 
knew  by  actual  experience  what  that  meant :  for  almost 
out  of  the  fires  of  martyrdom  at  Treves  he  came  to  Heidel- 
berg to  write  the  catechism.  Recently  Rev.  Julius  Ney, 
the  pastor  of  the  beautiful  Memorial  Church  of  the  Pro- 
test, at  Spires,  Germany  (the  Church  which  commemor- 
ates the  Protest  of  1529,  from  which  we  are  all  called 
Protestants),  has  published  two  interesting  articles,  en- 
titled, "The  Reformation  in  Treves."  The  fact  that  they 
are  based  on  his  original  researches  in  the  archives  of 
Coblence,  Spires,  Zweibrijcken  and  elsewhere,  gives  them 
great  value  and  authority.  Heretofore,  except  in  Siid- 
hoff's  "Olevianus  and  Ursinus,"  we  have  had  only  brief 
glimpses  of  Olevianus'  life  at  Treves,  but  these  articles 
throw  a  flood  of  light  on  the  subject.  Olevianus  was  at 
Treves  only  six  months  in  1559,  but  he  went  through 
more  in  that  brief  time  than  in  all  the  rest  of  his  life. 
The  story  of  it  reveals  his  great  ability  as  a  preacher,  and 

201 


202  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

also  his  heroism.  This  part  of  the  Hfe  of  the  author  of 
our  catechism  ought  to  stir  us  who  love  the  catechism 
to  high  devotion ;  yes,  even  martyrdom  for  our  day,  if 
necessary. 

The  history  of  this  period  divides  itself  into  three 
parts : 

1.  The  early  preaching  of  Olevianus  (August  lo  to 
September  17). 

2.  The  first  entrance  of  the  Elector  of  Treves  (Sep- 
tember 17  to  October  26). 

3.  The  second  entrance  of  the  Elector  of  Treves 
(October  26  to  December  31). 

It  was  in  June,  1559,  that  Casper  Olevianus  came 
back  to  his  native  city,  in  order  to  preach  the  gospel. 
(Farel,  the  great  reformer,  had  first  told  him  that  it  was 
his  duty  to  go  home  and  preach  the  gospel.  And  the 
consistory  of  Geneva,  in  response  to  letters  from  Treves 
asking  for  Protestant  services,  had  appointed  him).  But 
it  seemed  a  foolhardy  thing  for  this  young  theologue,  just 
out  of  Calvin's  Theological  Seminary  at  Geneva,  to  at- 
tempt such  a  thing.  For  Treves  was  the  seat  of  one  of 
the  great  Catholic  Electors  of  Germany.  It  prided  itself 
on  having  been  attached  to  Catholicism  for  fourteen 
centuries, — that  is,  since  the  days  of  Constantine  the 
Great, — indeed,  so  faithfully  attached  that  it  had  received 
the  name  of  Holy  Treves.  And  besides  all  this  it  had, 
just  before  Olevianus'  time,  become  the  guardian  of  the 
"Holy  Coat  of  Christ,"  a  very  sacred  relic  which  was 
worshipped  there  every  few  years,  as  it  was  publicly 
shown.  In  view  of  all  this,  what  possibility  was  there 
that  such  a  devoted  Catholic  city  would  at  all  allow 
Protestantism  to  enter.  Olevianus  was  like  a  man  put- 
ting his  head  into  a  lion's  mouth  in  attempting  it.  In- 
deed it  almost  looked  as  if  he,  like  the  early  Christians, 


OLEVIANUS  AT  TREVES  203 

courted  martyrdom,  which  indeed,  as  we  shall  see,  he 
narrowly  escaped. 

On  his  arrival  his  first  act  was  to  get  a  position  so  as 
to  be  able  to  live.  On  June  26,  the  records  say  he  made 
application  to  the  city  council  for  a  position  as  teacher. 
In  his  request  he  expressed  a  desire  that  he  might  be 
of  service  to  his  native  city,  that  his  recently  deceased 
father  had,  at  great  expense,  educated  his  two  sons  and 
had  often  admonished  them  to  exhibit  thankfulness  to 
their  city.  As  he  did  not  wish  to  be  a  burden  to  his 
widowed  mother,  he  desired  to  use  his  talents  for  the 
benefit  of  the  youth  of  the  city.  He  preferred  to  labor 
there  at  a  smaller  salary  than  he  could  get  elsewhere. 
The  city  council  accepted  his  request,  for  it,  on  its  part, 
was  somewhat  proud  of  him,  as  although  only  23  years 
of  age,  he  bore  the  title  of  Doctor  (he  had  received  the 
title  of  Doctor  of  Laws  at  the  university  of  Bourges), 
and  he  is  generally  named  on  the  records  of  the  archives 
as  "Doctor"  or  "Doctor  Casper."  He  was  to  receive  a 
salary  of  100  gulden  (about  $40.00),  and  was  to  deliver 
lectures  on  logic  and  philosophy,  on  which  subject  no 
lectures  had  been  delivered  at  the  university  of  Treves 
for  some  time.  They  were  to  be  delivered  in  a  school 
building  endowed  for  that  purpose,  but  unused.  The 
rector  of  the  university  seems  not  to  have  been  informed 
of  this  arrangement,  and  when  he  learned  of  it  he  said : 
"Teach  courageously  out  of  the  Bible,  for  the  priests 
greatly  need  it."  This  Olevianus  proceeded  to  do  by 
using  the  Logic  of  Melancthon,  in  which  there  were  many 
doctrines  and  proof-texts  from  the  Bible,  which  he  uti- 
lized to  teach  gospel  truth.  But  as  these  lectures  had  to 
be  given  in  the  Latin  language,  the  number  of  his  hearers 
was  small.  This  did  not  suit  such  an  active  young 
preacher  like  him,  and  the  smallness  of  his  audience  was 


204 


THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 


especially  galling  to  him,  for  the  priests,  who  were  his 
first  opposers  as  they  already  smelt  the  heresy  of  Prot- 
estantism, ridiculed  him  on  that  account. 

I.      THE  EARLY  PREACHING  OF  0L,EVIANUS 

He,  therefore,  a  little  over  a  month  after  his  arrival, 
sought  a  wider  sphere  of  influence,  and  on  one  of  the 
city's  buildings,  the  Steip,  he  nailed,  on  August  9th,  a 
notice  that  on  the  following  day,  which  was  a  great  Cath- 
olic festival  day,  St.  Lawrence  Day,  he  would,  between 
8  A.  M.  and  10  A.  M.,  preach  in  his  school  in  the  German 
language.  He  also  gathered  the  children  and  began 
teaching  them  the  German  catechism.  He  did  not  wait 
to  get  permission  of  the  city  council  to  do  this,  but  it  is 
probable  that  he  had  an  understanding  with  some  of  its 
members,  who  were  inclined  to  Protestantism,  about  the 
matter.  For  the  scandalous  lives  of  the  clergy  had  caused 
a  number  of  the  citizens  to  incline  to  Protestantism.  One 
of  the  priests  complained,  in  1548,  to  the  synod  that  the 
clergy  preached  on  Christ's  fasting  in  the  wilderness,  but 
they  lived  after  the  fashion  of  Epicurus, — they  lay  fasts 
in  others,  but  themselves  keep  bacchanalian  festivals. 
Some  of  the  Protestants  were  among  the  most  prominent 
in  the  city,  as  John  Steuss,  the  head  burgomaster  of  the 
city,  who  had  been  in  the  city  council  for  thirty  years, 
and  for  six  years  had  been  at  the  head  of  the  city's  gov- 
ernment. With  him  was  his  brother,  Peter,  the  head  of 
the  weaver's  guild;  also  some  of  the  sheriffs  and  mem- 
bers of  the  city  council,  as  Peter  Sirck  and  Otto  Seel. 
They  had  become  more  hopeful  of  a  Protestant  move- 
ment since  it  had  been  introduced  into  neighboring  dis- 
tricts, as  Beldenz  and  Zweibriicken,  and  neighboring 
towns,  as  Trarbach.    Calvin  had  had  a  letter  from  Sirck 


OLEVIANUS  AT  TREVES  205 

and  Sealvand  it  was  a  letter  from  them  to  Geneva,  that 
had  led  the  Genevese  to  send  a  preacher  in  Olevianus. 

On  the  next  day,  his  birthday,  Olevianus  preached  to 
a  great  crowd  that  filled  his  school.  Many,  instead  of 
going  to  mass,  went  to  hear  what  novelty  he,  like  Paul  of 
Athens,  would  tell.  Among  them  was  the  secretary  of 
the  city  council,  Dronkman,  a  devoted  Catholic,  who  be- 
came one  of  Olevianus'  greatest  enemies,  and  yet  he  is 
a  very  important  character  to  us  in  this  study,  as  it  is 
to  his  diary  that  we  owe  almost  all  our  knowledge  of 
what  happened  to  Olevianus  here,  for  he  was  a  very  care- 
ful secretary  and  kept  a  fine  record  of  events.  It  seems 
strange  that  a  Catholic,  Olevianus'  worst  enemy,  should 
be  his  best  witness  to  us.  It  is  to  Dronkman  that  we  owe 
an  account  of  what  Olevianus  preached  upon  at  that 
first  service.  Olevianus  might  have  preached  an  irenic 
gospel, — that  is,  not  attacked  Catholicism,  and  perhaps 
that  would  have  been  wise  at  that  time.  But  Olevianus, 
like  Paul  at  Athens,  when  his  soul  was  stirred  up  within 
him  at  the  idolatry  around  him,  seems  to  have  been  roused 
by  the  gross  superstitions  of  Treves.  His  sermon  was 
against  Catholic  errors,  such  as  the  mass,  processions,  the 
worship  of  saints,  etc.  His  sermon  was  received  with 
joy  by  some,  but  with  hatred  by  others.  Dronkman  de- 
clared that  his  impression  was  that  it  would  cause  an 
uproar  in  the  city,  and  he  proved  a  true  prophet,  as  we 
shall  see. 

Two  days  later  the  preaching  of  Olevianus  was 
brought  before  the  city  council  by  a  Catholic, — Nuss- 
baum, — who  asked  that  it  be  prohibited.  Olevianus  was, 
therefore,  called  before  the  council.  This  was  his  first 
appearance  before  the  city  council,  but  not  by  any  means 
his  last :  for  he,  like  Paul  before  the  Sanhedrim,  had  to 
repeatedly  defend  his  new  faith.    He  there  declared  that 


2o6  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

"he  was  ready  to  stop  preaching  if  so  ordered  by  the 
council."  That  day  it  did  not  come  to  a  prohibition  of  his 
preaching,  but  the  next  day  he  wrote  to  the  council,  ask- 
ing that  there  might  be  no  hasty  decision,  as  many  of 
the  citizens  had  not  heard  him  or  knew  of  the  matter 
only  by  hearsay,  and  it  would  not  be  right  to  condemn 
him  unheard.  He  declared  that  his  doctrine  was  taken 
from  no  other  source  than  the  Word  of  God.  He  promised 
that  if  allowed  to  continue  teaching,  he  would  do  so  peace- 
ably. So  having  had  an  understanding  with  the  Evan- 
gelical members  of  the  council  he  again  preached  that  day, 
Sunday,  August  13.  On  that  day  a  meeting  of  the  city 
council  was  held,  the  Catholics  being  in  the  majority,  but 
its  Evangelical  members  defended  his  preaching.  They 
prevented  any  action  against  him  by  shrewdly  suggest- 
ing that  the  matter  be  referred  to  the  different  guilds, 
which,  at  that  time,  were  of  the  greatest  influence  in  every 
German  town. 

This  reference  of  the  matter  to  the  guilds  revealed 
an  interesting  situation.  Of  the  thirteen  guilds  of  the 
city,  the  weavers  was  by  far  the  most  influential.  It  had 
eight  members  in  the  city  council.  It  was  the  one  that 
was  most  inclined  toward  Protestantism,  and  it  voted  that 
Olevianus  should  continue  to  preach  and  teach.  They 
offered  that  if  the  city  would  not  pay  his  salary  they 
would  do  so,  and,  if  the  city  would  not  allow  him  the 
school  building  for  preaching,  they  would  provide  a  place. 
The  tailor's  guild  also  decided  favorably  to  Olevianus' 
preaching.  The  smiths,  to  whom  there  belonged  a  num- 
ber of  rich  goldsmiths,  also  desired  him  to  preach.  Thus 
three  guilds  were  in  his  favor.  Of  the  remaining  ten 
guilds,  eight  declared  their  willingness  to  have  him  con- 
tinue his  teaching  in  Latin,  but  that  his  school  building 
should  not  be  used  for  his  preaching  in  German.     Only 


OLEVIANUS  AT  TREVES 


207 


two  guilds — the  butchers'  and  grocers' — wanted  him  en- 
tirely silenced.  As  a  result  of  this  action  of  the  guilds, 
he  was  not  permitted  to  preach  in  the  school,  but  he  was 
not  forbidden  to  preach  elsewhere.  So  the  Evangelical 
members  of  the  city  council  found  another  place  for 
him — the  St.  Jacob's  Hospital  Church.  This  Church  did 
not  belong  to  the  Catholic  Church,  but  to  a  hospital,  and 
was  the  property  of  the  city.  It  could,  therefore,  be  used. 
To  it  Olevianus  went  on  the  following  Sunday,  August 
20,  accompanied  by  a  crowd  of  Evangelical  citizens. 

Up  to  this  time  only  the  city  council  had  taken  action, 
but  now  another  power  steps  in,  for  Treves  had  a  double 
government.  It  was  governed  by  its  own  city  council 
and  also  by  the  Elector,  who  had  an  electoral  council. 
The  city  council  looked  after  the  temporal  affairs,  the 
electoral  after  the  religious.  The  Elector  and  his  authori- 
ties now  began  taking  a  hand.  He  was  away  from  Treves 
when  Olevianus  began  preaching,  attending  the  diet  of 
the  German  Empire  at  Augsburg.  He  had  left  behind 
him  a  governor,  who  acted  in  his  place,  and  together  with 
his  electoral  council  tried  to  hinder  the  Protestant  move- 
ment. They  also  acquainted  him  with  what  was  taking 
place  in  the  city.  So  on  Monday,  August  21,  after  the 
first  service  in  St.  Jacob's  Church,  five  members  of  the 
electoral  council  appeared  before  the  city  council  and 
asked  by  whose  authority  this  new  religion  of  Olevianus 
had  been  permitted  in  the  city.  Peter  Steuss  that  day 
presented  a  paper  to  the  council,  which  reminded  them 
that  the  last  diet  had  permitted  the  free  exercise  of  the 
religion  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  on  the  basis  of  the 
freedom  granted  by  the  Augsburg  Peace  of  1555. 

The  electoral  councilors  again  came  before  the  city 
council  on  August  22  and  Olevianus  was  called  before 
them.     This  was  his  second  speech  to  them.     He  de- 


2o8  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

clared  that  God's  honor  had  led  him  to  preach — that  noth- 
ing was  more  needed  for  Germany  than  the  Word  of 
God.  He  declared  that  he  had  taught  in  Latin,  but  as 
his  hearers  were  few  and  for  this  he  had  been  ridiculed 
by  the  priests,  he  had  begun  to  use  the  German  in  his 
religious  teaching.  No  one  had  given  him  advice  to 
preach,  but  he  declared  he  was  willing  to  obey  the 
Elector's  command.  On  Thursday,  August  24,  the 
electoral  council  considered  how  Protestant  preaching 
might  be  suppressed  in  Treves.  They  determined  that 
the  first  step  was  to  get  some  of  the  Protestant  sheriffs 
out  of  the  city  council;  and  so  they  call  before  them, 
August  25,  all  the  sheriffs  in  that  council  as  those  who 
held  this  office  had  been  appointed  to  it  by  their  master, 
the  Elector  of  Treves.  Three  of  them — Sirck,  Seel  and 
Pisport — were  Protestant.  Only  Seel  and  Pisport  came. 
The  president  of  the  electoral  council,  as  governor, 
charged  them  with  violating  their  oath  to  the  Elector  by 
being  friendly  to  Protestantism.  They  denied  this.  When 
a  number  of  the  sheriffs  declared  that  they  remained  Cath- 
olics, Seel  boldly  declared  that  he  was  an  adherent  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession.  Pisport  did  not  declare  that  he 
was  a  Protestant  (the  truth  was  that  he  had  gone  to 
Olevianus'  first  service  out  of  curiosity,  but  had  been  im- 
pressed, and  afterwards,  as  we  shall  see,  became  a  staunch 
Protestant).  He  said  he  believed  in  God  Almighty  and 
Jesus  Christ.  He  had  heard  Olevianus  preach,  but  had 
none  the  less  attended  the  Catholic  service  at  the  cathe- 
dral. He  was  ready  to  hear  anybody,  even  if  he  were 
a  juggler.  The  president  then  suspended  Seel  and  Pis- 
port. Seel  replied  that  if  the  suspension  were  legal,  he 
must  say  that  he  placed  the  salvation  of  his  soul  above 
all  worldly  matters.  But  he  questioned  the  right  of  the 
president  to  suspend  him,  and  protested  against  it.     The 


OLEVIANUS  AT  TREVES  209 

Elector  had  appointed  him,  and  he,  alone,  could  suspend 
him.  He  declared  that,  therefore,  he  would  not  stay  out 
of  the  city  council.  Pisport  took  his  suspension  some- 
what humorously,  saying  that  he  would  play  a  game  of 
draughts  with  the  governor  and  drink  a  glass  of  beer 
with  him,  and  then  the  war  would  result  in  reconciliation. 
He  little  knew  the  ferocity  of  Catholic  vengeance  on  those 
who  left  their  faith,  as  he  found  it  out  afterwards.  It 
proved  to  be  a  tragic  and  not  a  humorous  incident.  The 
president  then  also  suspended  Sirck,  though  absent,  be- 
cause he  had  declared,  in  writing,  that  he  adhered  to  the 
Augsburg  Confession. 

The  electoral  council,  having  failed  to  get  the  city 
council  to  act,  now  went  directly  to  the  citizens  and  in- 
vited the  guilds  to  a  friendly  conference.  This  failed 
because  it  was  contrary  to  custom  for  the  electoral  council 
to  do  such  a  thing,  as  it  belonged  to  the  city  council.  So 
the  electoral  council  appeared  before  the  city  council, 
August  24,  and  asked  them  to  forbid  Olevianus  to 
preach.  So  Olevianus  was  ordered  to  appear  before  the 
city  council  again,  and  there  the  electoral  council  forbade 
him  to  preach  any  more  under  danger  of  severe  penalties. 
They  worried  him  at  the  hearing  with  trying  to  get  him 
to  tell  which  one  of  the  guilds  had  asked  him  to  preach, 
but  he  replied  that  he  had  not  received  authority  from 
any  of  the  authorities  to  preach  in  German,  but  had  been 
called  to  it  by  the  people.  And  he  appealed  in  defense  to 
the  act  of  the  German  diet,  granting  the  right  of  worship 
to  the  adherents  of  the  Augsburg  Confession. 

Olevianus  preached  again  on  Sunday,  August  27, 
and  on  the  28th  the  president  of  the  electoral  council 
again  declared  to  the  city  council  that  it  was  desirable  to 
ask  the  city  council  to  arrest  Olevianus  and  keep  him 
in  custody  until  the  Elector's  return.     That  council  also 

14 


210  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

declared  that  they  would  not  meet  with  the  city  council 
as  long  as  they  allowed  the  three  Protestant  sheriffs, 
Sirck,  Seel  and  Pisport,  to  sit  as  members  of  their  body. 
On  Monday,  August  28,  Sirck,  Seel  and  Pisport 
appeared  before  the  electoral  council  to  ask  whether  the 
president  of  that  body  had  the  right  to  suspend  them 
without  the  Electors  special  order.  The  president  re- 
plied by  asking  Sirck  whether  any  one  had  the  right  to 
appoint  preachers  without  the  Elector's  order,  as  Sirck 
had  done  in  the  case  of  Olevianus.  He  asked  Sirck 
whether  all  this  did  not  encourage  riot  and  disorder. 
Sirck  then  declared  that  he  would  not  again  appear  before 
the  electoral  council  until  the  Elector's  return.  They  also 
asked  on  what  ground  that  council  declared  that  the  ac- 
tion of  the  German  diet,  giving  liberty  of  worship  to  the 
Lutherans,  did  not  apply  to  them  in  Treves.  In  the  dis- 
cussion at  the  electoral  council  that  day  its  president  de- 
clared that  Olevianus  had  preached  the  day  before  in 
spite  of  the  decision  of  the  council  forbidding  it.  And  he 
brought  up  a  new  point,  which  became  very  important  in 
the  later  history  of  the  controversy — namely,  that  Ole- 
vianus was  not  an  adherent  of  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
but  was  a  Calvinist.  This  charge  he  might  make,  for 
Olevianus  had  been  a  student  of  Calvin.  It  also  brought 
up  the  new  legal  point,  whether  the  Augsburg  Confession 
was  large  enough  in  its  meaning  to  include  the  Calvinists 
and  protect  their  worship  in  Germany.  The  Zwinglians 
were  not  protected  by  it.  But  now  a  new  doctrine,  the 
Calvinistic,  a  higher  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  than 
the  Zwinglianism,  half  way  between  Zwinglianism  and 
Calvinism,  had  come  up,  and  the  legal  question  now  was 
whether  the  peace  of  Augsburg,  which  allowed  the  use  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  was  large  enough  to  include 
the  Calvinists  and  protect  them  in  Germany.    This  ques- 


OLEVIANUS  AT  TREVES  211 

tion  was  not  fully  and  definitely  decided  until  about 
ninety  years  later,  at  the  end  of  the  thirty  years'  war 
(1648),  although  the  German  diet  of  1566,  in  permitting 
the  Heidelberg  catechism  in  Germany,  gave  the  Reformed 
toleration,  but  not  recognition.  Before  1648  they  existed 
de  facto,  but  not  de  jure. 

Sirck  replied  to  the  electoral  council  that  Olevianus 
was  not  a  sectarian,  meaning  a  Zwinglian,  and  that 
they  did  him  injustice.  The  president  then  weakened  and 
evaded  the  issue  by  saying  that  he  was  no  theologian 
and  did  not  understand  the  matter,  at  which  Sirck  re- 
plied that  then  he  had  no  right  to  make  the  charge. 

Meanwhile  Protestantism  grew  apace  through  the 
preaching  of  Olevianus,  for  he  preached  on  weekdays  in 
spite  of  the  prohibition.  His  adherents  grew  daily,  so 
that  the  Catholic  Chronicler  said  (August  20)  that  no 
one  came  to  the  Catholic  confessional,  the  canons  of  the 
Catholics  were  despised,  and  Olevianus  was  master  of 
the  city.  Truly,  Olevianus  had  lit  a  spark  that  had  pro- 
duced a  great  conflagration,  and  all  in  only  ten  days  time. 
Either  the  people  were  ripe  for  Protestantism  or  he  was 
a  great  preacher,  especially  for  a  young  theologue.  Both 
were  probably  true. 

On  that  day  (August  29)  the  electoral  council  came 
to  the  city  hall  to  meet  with  the  city  council,  and  also 
with  the  guilds.  The  electoral  council,  seeing  Sirck,  Seel 
and  Pisport  seated  among  the  members  of  the  city  council, 
protested  against  it.  The  city  council  replied  that  they 
still  had  their  sheriff's  letters  of  appointment,  together 
with  the  seal  of  the  Elector.  Burgomaster  Steuss  de- 
clared that  the  president  of  the  electoral  council  had  no 
right  to  suspend  them.  Then  Hompheus,  a  member  of 
the  electoral  council,  brought  forward  a  second  charge 
against  Olevianus'  preaching.    He  declared  that  privilege 


212  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

of  worship  according  to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  was 
only  given  to  the  free  cities  of  the  empire,  but  Treves 
was  not  a  free  city,  but  an  imperial  city,  which  meant  that 
it  was  under  the  direct  control  of  its  prince,  one  of  the 
Electors  of  the  empire.  (We  may  pause  to  note  here, 
that  they  tried  to  prohibit  Protestant  preaching  for  two 
reasons :  First,  because  Olevianus  was  a  Calvinist ;  and 
second,  because  Treves,  as  an  imperial  city,  was  not  under 
the  law  which  permitted  Lutheranism  in  it.)  Hompheus 
warned  the  guilds  against  the  evil  of  leaving  their  old 
religion,  and  asked  them  to  declare  to  the  council  which 
religion  they  adhered  to.  It  was  evident,  after  this  new 
point  had  been  raised,  that  the  Catholics  would  fight 
Protestant  preaching  legally  to  the  bitter  end.  And  it 
also  revealed  that  further  attendance  on  Olevianus' 
preaching  would  only  bring  serious  dangers  on  the  citi- 
zens. The  issue  was  now  clearly  raised;  but  Olevianus, 
though  the  majority  of  the  citizens  remained  Catholic, 
yet  found  his  Protestant  minority  daily  increasing,  and 
so  devotedly  steadfast  that,  like  Paul,  he  declared  he 
must  obey  God  rather  than  man.  But  he  also  declared  that 
his  opponents  knew  that  he  in  no  way  attacked  their  per- 
sons, but  only  their  doctrines. 

And  now  we  can  see  more  fully  his  heroism,  for  every 
time  he  preached  it  was  with  a  sword  of  Damocles  hang- 
ing over  his  head.  The  majority  of  the  council  desired 
Steuss,  as  burgomaster,  to  forbid  Olevianus  to  preach. 
This  Steuss  refused  to  do,  replying:  "It  must  go  on, 
whether  it  be  hurtful  to  the  Catholic  councilors  or  not." 
As  a  result  of  this  there  were  stormy  times  in  the  city 
council  and  the  guilds.  Sirck  went  with  Olevianus  to 
four  of  the  guild-houses,  where  Sirck  addressed  them, 
and  Olevianus  admonished  them  out  of  the  Bible,  not  to 
condemn  him  unheard,  and  invited  them  to  come  and 


OLEVIANUS  AT  TREVES 


213 


hear  him.  Sirck  did  everything  in  his  power,  sending 
a  letter  to  some  of  the  guilds  so  as  to  strengthen  their 
members  who  might  be  beginning  to  weaken. 

The  leaders  of  the  Protestants  also  at  the  end  of 
August  or  the  beginning  of  September  called  all  those 
who  wished  to  be  recognized  as  adherents  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  to  the  Draper's  House.  There  they 
asked  them  whether  they  wished  to  be  recognized  as 
members  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  took  their 
names.  The  whole  assembly  declared  they  would  be  true 
to  that  Confession  with  their  goods  and  their  blood  (gut 
und  blut),  and  they  praised  Burgomaster  Steuss  for  his 
course.  (The  electoral  council,  which,  as  we  have  seen, 
was  the  centre  of  Catholicism  in  Treves,  looked  on  this 
meeting  as  a  conspiracy  against  the  Elector.)  These 
Protestant  citizens  also  declared  that  they  were  ready  to 
raise  funds  for  the  support  of  a  pastor ;  yes,  they  were 
ready  to  call  a  second  Protestant  minister.  And  a  strange 
Protestant  minister,  whose  name  is  not  given,  who  was 
probably  from  Beldenz,  preached  for  them  on  Sep- 
tember 3. 

On  September  5  the  city  council  and  the  guild- 
masters  appeared  before  the  electoral  council  to  state  the 
action  of  the  guilds.  The  weavers,  all  except  one,  de- 
clared for  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  dyers  and  shoe- 
makers desired  to  be  adherents  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession and  declared  that  the  majority  wanted  Olevianus 
to  preach.  The  tailors  also  decided  thus,  all  except  five  or 
six.  So  also  the  smiths,  except  five  or  six.  Among  the 
latter  was  a  goldsmith,  but  the  other  goldsmiths  (of 
whom  there  was  a  considerable  number)  declared  for  the 
Augsburg  Confession.  The  masons  wanted  to  remain 
Catholic,  except  eight  or  nine,  but  did  not  wish  to  vote 
on  either  side  as  to  Olevianus'  preaching.     The  other 


214 


THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 


guilds  desired  to  remain  Catholic;  but  all  of  them,  with 
the  exception  of  the  sailors,  revealed  a  larger  or  smaller 
minority  in  favor  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  Evi- 
dently, comparing  these  statistics  with  the  vote  of  the 
guilds  when  Olevianus  came,  the  Protestants  had  con- 
siderably progressed,  for  now  five  guilds  declared  for  the 
Augsburg  Confession  against  only  three  before,  and  in  all 
of  the  others,  save  one,  there  was  a  respectable  Prot- 
estant minority.  Of  the  citizens  who  were  not  in  the 
guilds,  the  barbers  and  cooks  declared  for  Catholicism, 
as  did  the  brotherhood  and  the  vintners,  except  two  or 
three.  On  the  whole,  it  was  evident  that  one-third  of 
the  citizens  had  declared  for  the  Augsburg  Confession. 
What  wonderful  progress  had  been  made  within  a  month 
under  Olevianus'  preaching. 

II.      THE  FIRST  ENTRANCE  OF  THE  ELECTOR  OF  TREVES 

The  second  chapter  of  this  history  begins  with  the 
return  of  the  Elector  of  Treves,  which  caused  a  new 
factor  to  enter  in,  and  one  against  the  Protestants.  While 
the  events  just  mentioned  had  been  taking  place,  the 
Elector,  alarmed  at  the  progress  of  Protestantism  in  his 
city,  returned.  He  had  already  sent  to  the  chapter  of 
the  cathedral  at  Treves  a  demand  for  the  arrest  of  Ole- 
vianus, and  they  had  laid  it  before  the  city  council  Sep- 
tember 6,  but  Burgomaster  Steuss  protected  Olevianus 
and  asked  for  time  to  make  reply.  The  city  council,  on 
September  7,  notified  the  electoral  council  that  Ole- 
vianus had  given  his  oath  that  he  would  not  leave  the 
city,  and  that  he  would  appear  before  court,  and  they 
hoped  that  this  would  be  satisfactory  to  the  electoral 
court.     But  the  latter  repeated  its  request  for  his  arrest. 

By  this  time  it  was   evident  that  the  adherents   of 


OLEVIANUS  AT  TREVES  215 

Olevianus  had  increased  to  500  or  600  persons,  not  in- 
cluding women,  children  and  servants.  The  St.  Jacob's 
Church  had  become  far  too  small  for  his  audiences.  Mat- 
ters had  gone  so  far  that  the  Catholic  members  of  the 
city  council,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  felt  it  best  that  free 
exercise  of  worship  according  to  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession be  given  the  Protestants.  So  Burgomaster 
Steuss,  on  September  9,  with  his  fellow-Protestants, 
sent  a  communication  to  the  Elector,  stating  their  case, 
for  the  Elector  was  expected  every  hour. 

On  September  11,  the  guilds  again  made  a  report. 
The  furriers,  grocers  and  tailors  made  no  report,  as  their 
guild-masters  were  not  present.  All  the  other  guilds 
voted  against  the  arrest  of  Olevianus.  Of  these  the 
weavers  were  the  most  important,  and  they  not  only 
voted  against  Olevianus'  arrest,  but  they  also  asked  of 
the  Elector,  that  a  larger  church  and  more  Protestant 
ministers  be  granted  to  them.  So  the  city  council  de- 
cided that  each  religion.  Catholic  and  Lutheran,  should 
be  permitted  to  have  its  worship,  and  that  Olevianus 
should  not  be  arrested. 

On  that  day  the  Protestants  sent  to  Zweibriicken  for 
another  minister,  and  Flinsbach  was  sent  to  them  by  the 
Duke  of  Zweibriicken.  He  arrived  on  September  23. 
Meanwhile  the  situation  changed  very  much  and  Ole- 
vianus and  Flinsbach  found  it  difficult  to  meet  the  grow- 
ing opposition  from  the  Catholics,  which  was  greatly 
aided  by  the  return  of  the  Elector. 

The  first  to  act  was  the  electoral  council,  who,  find- 
ing that  they  could  not  get  the  city  council  to  arrest 
Olevianus  and  stop  the  Protestant  preaching,  now  took 
the  matter  into  their  own  hands.  On  September  14, 
the  great  Catholic  festival  of  the  Elevation  of  the  Cross, 
the  electoral  council  called  Olevianus  before  them  after 


2i6  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

his  morning  service  in  the  St.  Jacob's  Church.  The  presi- 
dent of  the  council  now  officially  forbade  him  to  preach. 
Olevianus  replied  that  he  would  think  it  over. 

On  that  very  day  there  came  a  great  crowd  of  people 
to  the  afternoon  worship.  Olevianus  went  up  into  the 
pulpit,  and  before  he  began  the  service  he  told  them  that 
the  electoral  council  had  forbidden  his  preaching  under 
severe  penalties.  He  added  these  noble  words:  "You 
remember  that  three  of  your  guilds,  with  others,  asked 
me  to  preach  the  eternal  truth  of  God,  as  I  have  made 
known  to  his  majesty,  the  Elector.  If  you  have  repented 
of  this  I  will  not  preach.  But  if  you  remain  steadfast 
to  this  call  and  remain  firm  in  the  truth,  I  will  also  place 
my  life  and  blood  in  danger,  in  order  to  preach  the  Word 
of  God  and  to  obey  God  rather  than  man.  Those  who, 
from  the  heart,  agree  to  this  shall  say,  Amen."  The 
whole  congregation  then,  with  loud  voices,  cried  out 
"Amen."  When  he  afterward  made  the  public  prayer 
the  people  broke  out  into  loud  weeping.  These  actions 
in  the  Church  were  then  made  known  to  the  electoral 
council,  who  considered  this  to  be  rebellion.  Another 
account  of  this  service,  given  to  the  city  council,  adds  that 
when  Olevianus  admonished  the  people  not  to  desert 
him,  if  the  priests  tried  to  lay  hands  on  him,  that  they 
replied  that  they  would  stand  by  him  with  their  goods 
and  their  blood  (gut  und  blut) — that  is,  to  the  end. 
Thus  the  two  councils  were  at  odds.  The  city  council 
had  given  him  permission  to  preach,  and  the  electoral 
council  forbade  it.  The  jealousy  between  the  two  pre- 
vented the  order  of  the  latter  from  being  carried  out. 

Just  at  this  critical  time  the  Elector  came  back  to  the 
city,  and  he  came  back  with  the  fixed  purpose  to  stamp 
out  Protestantism,  that  the  holy  city  of  Treves  should 
not  have  its  reputation  besmirched  by  heresy.     He  pre- 


OLEVIANUS  AT  TREVES  217 

pared  himself  by  arming  his  followers,  and  on  Sep- 
tember 16  came  to  the  castle,  about  three  miles  from 
Treves,  named  Pfalzel,  from  which  he  expected  to  make 
his  entry  into  Treves.  He  had  with  him  170  armed 
cavalry.  But  his  coming  with  soldiers  alarmed  the  citi- 
zens, even  the  Catholics,  who  feared  for  their  liberties. 
A  rumor  spread  abroad  in  the  city  that  he  was  coming 
with  soldiers,  that  the  Elector  of  Mayence  had  sent 
him  60  cavalry,  and  the  Elector  of  Cologne  would  send 
him  100.  And  one  of  his  councilors  in  Treves  left  the 
word  drop,  that  things  were  going  to  go  as  the  Elector 
wanted.  The  excitement  that  reigned  within  the  city  can 
be  imagined.  Already,  on  September  13,  the  city  coun- 
cil decided  to  garrison  the  Simeon's  gate,  the  one  nearest 
Pfalzel.  (This  act  was  later  charged  by  the  electoral 
council  as  an  act  of  the  Protestants,  and  that  they  had 
done  it  without  the  knowledge  of  the  council.)  The  Prot- 
estants, alarmed  at  the  Elector's  approach  with  soldiers, 
armed  themselves.  This  led  the  Catholics  to  arms.  The 
feeling  rose  so  high  that  it  almost  came  to  a  conflict.  In- 
deed, a  Protestant  goldsmith  was  wounded  and  lamed  by 
a  Catholic  grocer.  To  prevent  further  strife.  Burgo- 
master Steuss,  on  September  16,  had  the  chains  placed 
across  the  streets. 

On  that  day  (September  16)  the  Elector  made  his 
entrance  into  the  city.  On  the  morning  of  that  day 
Burgomaster  Steuss  reminded  the  council  that  they  ought 
to  be  united  in  protecting  the  rights  of  the  city,  and  that 
the  Evangelicals  were  prepared  to  answer  the  Elector 
about  the  Augsburg  Confession,  in  a  way  that  would  not 
harm  the  city.  While  they  were  in  the  midst  of  the  dis- 
cussion of  this,  a  citizen  falsely  brought  the  news  that  the 
Elector  was  coming  and  was  at  the  city  gate.  So  they  sent 
a  committee  to  meet  him,  who  found  him  still  at  Pfalzel. 


2i8  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

His  deputy  promised  that  he,  if  allowed  to  enter,  would 
respect  the  rights  of  the  city.  When  the  committee  asked 
what  the  Elector  proposed  to  do  in  regard  to  the  ad- 
herents of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  his  representative 
replied  that  he  would  do  nothing  against  the  right  or 
peace  of  the  empire.  Before  the  committee  could  return 
to  make  a  full  report,  word  came  that  the  Elector,  with  a 
great  crowd,  had  left  Pfalzel  and  had  come  to  the 
Simeon's  gate  of  the  city.  The  city  councilors,  who  had 
remained  in  the  city,  gave  commandment  to  close  the  bars 
of  the  gate  against  him.  When  they  learned  what 
promises  he  had  given  they  sent  a  delegate  to  speak  per- 
sonally with  the  Elector.  And  Burgomaster  Steuss  asked 
him  what  he  would  do  with  the  Lutherans  in  the  city — 
that  they  desired  that  no  force  should  be  used  against 
them.  The  Elector  parried  this  by  saying:  "The  Em- 
peror was  their  and  his  Lord,"  and  Steuss  declared  him- 
self satisfied.  So  the  gate  was  opened  and  the  Elector 
entered. 

The  bitterness  between  Protestants  and  Catholics  was 
increased  by  an  incident  that  occurred  on  Sunday  (Sep- 
tember 17),  the  day  after  the  Elector's  entrance.  The 
Elector  had  brought  with  him  a  priest,  Peter  Fae,  from 
Boppard  on  the  river  Rhine.  Because  the  Protestants 
wanted  preaching  he  would  give  it  to  them.  So  he  sent 
Fae  to  preach  to  them,  or  at  least  hinder  their  Protestant 
service  as  much  as  possible  if  Olevianus  attempted  to 
preach.  The  priest,  therefore,  attended  by  a  body-guard 
of  Catholics,  proceeded  to  the  St.  Jacob's  Church  at  7 
o'clock  Sunday  morning.  He  was,  however,  careful  to 
hide  his  priest's  robes  under  his  mantle.  When  he 
entered  the  Church  he  found  that  Olevianus  had  not  yet 
arrived,  though  quite  a  numerous  congregation  had  as- 
sembled.   He  at  once  ascended  the  pulpit  and  was  about 


OLEVIANUS  AT  TREVES 


219 


beginning  to  preach  when  Olevianus,  with  his  body- 
guard, entered  the  Church.  Astonished  at  seeing  a 
stranger  in  his  pulpit,  Olevianus  called  out  to  the  people: 
"What  does  this  mean?  Is  he  to  preach  or  I?"  Then 
he  asked  Fae  from  whom  he  had  received  orders  to 
preach.  Fae  replied  that  his  Lord,  the  Elector,  had  given 
them.  Then  Olevianus  turned  to  the  people  and  asked : 
"Do  you  want  this  man  to  preach  ?"  At  this  there  arose 
a  great  noise  and  tumult.  The  women  cried  murder  and 
the  men  seized  their  weapons,  at  the  same  time  taking  up 
the  benches  and  chairs.  It  looked  like  a  riot  against  the 
priest.  At  these  demonstrations  Fae  deemed  it  wise  to 
come  down  out  of  the  pulpit.  When  Olevianus  and 
others  came  up  to  him,  Fae  asked  if  he  was  Olevianus. 
When  Olevianus  replied,  "Yes,"  Fae  said  to  him :  "Do 
you  mean  to  prevent  me  by  force  from  preaching  the 
gospel  when  commanded  to  do  so  by  my  prince?"  Ole- 
vianus replied :  "I  will  not  restrain  you,  but  will  ask  the 
people  whom  they  desire  to  hear."  Fae,  however,  did 
not  want  him  to  do  this.  All  he  wanted  was  that  Ole- 
vianus should  quiet  the  people,  for  Fae  was  alarmed  at 
the  threatening  situation. 

So  Olevianus  ascended  the  pulpit  and  asked  the  people 
to  hear  Fae,  and  he  promised  that  if  Fae  preached  any- 
thing that  was  false  he  would  answer  it  in  his  sermon. 
But  the  people  by  this  time  were  not  in  a  mood  to  hear 
Fae.  They  would  not  be  quieted.  Fae  declares  that  by 
this  time  daggers  and  other  weapons  were  drawn,  threat- 
ening him.  Some  prominent  person,  he  said,  called  out 
that  the  bell  should  be  rung.  When  he  saw  the  men 
grasping  their  guns,  he  began  to  fear  and  called  to  the 
leader  of  his  body-guard  to  go  with  him  out  of  the 
Church,  so  that  no  evil  might  come  to  him.  At  this  Ole- 
vianus encouraged  him  and  took  him  by  his  hand,  keep- 


220  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

ing  the  people  from  harming  him,  and  led  him  safely  out 
of  the  Church.  Outside  of  the  Church  there  happened 
to  be  standing  the  brothers  Steuss  and  Sirck.  Burgo- 
master Steuss  asked  Fae :  "Did  you  come  to  cause  a  riot 
here?  Is  that  what  your  Lord  promised  us?"  Fae  re- 
plied that  not  he  but  they  had  caused  the  tumult,  and  that 
the  Elector  would  keep  his  promises.  After  Fae's  depart- 
ure, Olevianus  ascended  the  pulpit  and  again  put  the 
question  whether  the  people  wanted  him  to  preach  to 
them  as  before.  They,  with  uplifted  hands  and  loud 
voices,  cried  out:  "Yes,  yes.  We  pray  you  in  God's 
name  to  proceed."  So  Olevianus  preached  to  them  again 
that  day.  The  city  council,  when  they  heard  what  had 
happened  at  the  St.  Jacob's  Church,  sent  a  deputation 
to  the  Elector,  stating  that  it  had  happened  without  their 
will,  and  apologized  for  such  treatment  of  his  messenger. 

Meanwhile  the  Elector  held  a  meeting  of  his  council 
in  his  palace.  The  dean  of  the  cathedral  wanted  to  have 
Olevianus  arrested,  and  urged  that  the  Catholic  guild- 
masters  be  sent  for.  When  they  appeared  that  day  the 
Elector  declared  that  it  was  not  his  intention  to  tres- 
pass on  the  rights  of  the  city,  but  he  charged  the  Prot- 
estants with  a  conspiracy  against  the  city.  He,  there- 
fore, to  preserve  the  old  Catholic  faith,  wanted  them  to 
allow  him  to  place  his  soldiers  as  guards  at  the  city  gates, 
together  with  those  of  the  Catholic  citizens.  The  guild- 
masters  then  left  to  confer  with  their  guilds. 

But  his  request  to  place  his  soldiers  at  the  city  gates 
seemed,  even  to  the  Catholics,  to  threaten  a  violation  of 
the  liberties  of  the  city.  There  had,  before  this,  been 
strife  between  the  Elector  and  themselves,  and  they  were 
suspicious  that  the  Elector  was  trying  to  make  use  of  the 
present  emergency  to  get  control  of  the  city.  So  they 
did  not  agree  to  the  Elector's  request.     The  tense  state 


OLEVIANUS  AT  TREVES  221 

of  mind  is  shown  that  on  the  next  day  the  chains  were 
placed  across  the  streets  by  the  Protestants ;  and  on  Sep- 
tember 19  the  city  gates  did  not  open  till  11  A.  M.  The 
Catholics  in  the  city,  seeing  that  something  must  be  done, 
began  negotiating  with  the  Protestants  and  asked  that 
Olevianus  should  discontinue  preaching.  The  city  coun- 
cil met  on  September  19th  and  decided  to  give  each  party 
their  rights,  neither  was  to  attack  the  other. 

On  September  20,  the  city  secretary  and  syndic  went 
to  the  Draper's  Hall,  in  which  the  Protestants  were  ac- 
customed to  assemble,  and  received  from  them  the 
promise  that  Olevianus  would  not  preach  on  the  next 
day — St.  Matthew's  Day.  The  Evangelicals  also  again 
presented  their  claims  to  the  Elector.  They  declared 
that  they  had  gotten  Olevianus  to  occupy  the  pulpit  in 
the  St,  Jacob's  Church,  and  had  demanded  from  him  the 
Protestant  sacraments.  They  declared  that  they  were 
Christians  of  the  Old  and  the  New  Testaments ;  that 
Olevianus  preached  according  to  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion, and  asked  that  he  be  allowed  to  continue  preaching 
and  they  would  pay  his  salary.  They  also  asked  the 
council,  either  to  hear  him  or  to  examine  him  so  they 
might  know  his  doctrine;  yes,  they  even  offered  to  have 
a  public  disputation  with  the  Catholics.  They  declared 
that  the  disorder  in  their  Church  would  not  have  taken 
place,  if  it  had  been  known  beforehand  that  a  Catholic 
w^ould  be  the  preacher.  For  they  were  not,  as  had  been 
charged,  inclined  to  rebellion. 

On  Sunday,  September  24,  the  day  after  his  arrival, 
Flinsbach  preached  and  notified  the  Elector  of  his  pres- 
ence in  the  city,  and  the  next  day,  Monday,  he  was  sum- 
marily called  before  the  electoral  council  at  the  St.  Gan- 
golph's  Church.  Notwithstanding  that  he  declared  him- 
self an  adherent  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  he  was 


222  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

ordered  to  leave  the  city  before  sundown.  He,  like  Ole- 
vianus,  replied  that  "he  must  be  obedient  to  God  rather 
than  to  man."  He  sent  a  letter  stating  the  legal  status 
of  the  Lutherans  in  Germany.  After  the  coming  of 
Flinsbach,  the  charge  of  the  Elector  of  Treves  that  the 
Protestants  there  were  Calvinists  was  no  longer  true,  for 
Flinsbach  was  a  Lutheran.  His  coming  put  the  Prot- 
estants formally  under  the  protection  of  the  Augsburg 
Peace. 

And  on  that  day  the  Catholic  councilors  called  the 
Catholic  citizens  together  to  consider  the  statement  made 
by  the  Evangelicals  to  the  Elector.  They  decided  that 
neither  should  Olevianus  preach  or  the  second  Protestant 
minister.  They  appointed  committees  to  go  to  the  guilds 
and  get  their  views.  All  the  guilds  except  the  weavers, 
whose  members  belonged  to  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
agreed  to  this.  They  then  notified  the  Elector  that  they 
proposed  remaining  true  to  the  old  Catholic  religion,  but 
did  not  agree  to  his  garrisoning  the  city  with  his  soldiers. 

The  electoral  council  met  again  on  September  25. 
The  Elector  now  dubbed  the  Protestants'  "Calvinists."  Al- 
though the  Protestants  claimed  to  hold  to  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  although  not  a  word  of  Olevianus  could  be 
found  which  showed  he  was  a  Calvinist,  yet  the  Prot- 
estants were  from  this  time  looked  upon  as  Calvinists. 
The  electoral  council  also  considered  the  taking  of  a 
criminal  process  against  Olevianus,  but  they  feared  that 
the  Protestant  leaders  in  the  city  council,  which  would 
have  to  act  as  judges,  would  decide  against  them.  On 
September  26,  this  council  brought  forward  a  new  plan 
for  settling  the  differences,  a  financial  one.  They  would 
demand  10,000  or  12,000  guldens  of  the  Protestants  and 
the  dismissal  of  their  pastors. 

Then  the  Elector  ordered  the  Protestants  to  appear 


OLEVIANUS  AT  TREVES  223 

at  the  city  hall  on  Thursday,  September  28.  Steuss  re- 
plied that  he  could  not  gather  them  together  and  so  sent 
in  a  paper  stating  their  case.  But  the  influence  of  the 
Protestants  was  so  great  that  the  city  council,  on  Sep- 
tember 28,  sent  a  deputation,  composed  of  both  confes- 
sions, to  the  Elector,  asking  him  to  reply  to  the 
repeated  communications  of  the  Protestants.  He  then 
made  a  reply  that  they  had  already  received  a  sufficient 
answer.  So  every  efifort  of  his  to  suppress  Protestantism 
had  failed.  The  Protestants  were  determined  to  remain 
true  to  the  Augsburg  Confession.  Among  the  Catholics 
many  had  been  intimated  by  the  Elector.  But  still,  little 
as  they  were  inclined  to  favor  the  Protestants,  they 
were  as  little  inclined  to  favor  the  Elector's  acts  of 
severity  against  the  Protestants.  And  they  also  feared 
lest  the  old  freedom  of  the  city  would  be  lessened  by 
the  Elector.  The  Elector  finally  lost  patience,  and  as 
the  Catholics  would  not  do  anything  against  the  Prot- 
estants he  declared  that  they  had  become  a  party  with 
them.  So  finally,  unable  to  frighten  the  Protestants  by 
his  threats,  embittered  by  the  actions  of  the  Catholics, 
on  September  28,  he  summarily  left  the  city  twelve  days 
after  his  entrance.  He  went  to  his  garrison  at  Pfalzel. 
The  next  day  his  electoral  court  left  the  city.  This  de- 
parture of  their  bitterest  enemies  proved  for  the  time  a 
fortunate  thing  for  the  Protestants. 

During  all  the  negotiations  and  in  the  midst  of  the 
threats  against  him,  Olevianus  had  fearlessly  continued 
active,  both  in  preaching  and  in  the  pastorate.  Over 
against  the  Elector's  orders  he  pled  God's  command. 
"We  must  obey  God  rather  than  man"  was  his  motto. 
And  he  had  the  joy  of  gathering  around  himself  a  con- 
gregation that  literally  hung  on  his  lips.  Burgomaster 
Steuss  wrote,  on  September  9,  to  Elector  Frederick  HI 


224  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

of  the  Palatinate,  that  500  to  600  of  the  citizens  had 
become  Protestant,  and,  on  September  27,  that  the  num- 
ber was  constantly  increasing.  The  truth  was  that  this 
23-year-old  preacher  had,  by  the  power  of  God's  Spirit, 
converted  hundreds  of  souls  in  less  than  two  months. 
The  loud  weeping  of  the  congregation,  when  they  heard 
that  Olevianus  dared  no  longer  preach  to  them,  only 
showed  their  deep  attachment  to  him.  This  attachment 
to  him  increased,  as  the  report  spread  abroad  after  the 
entrance  of  the  Elector,  that  notwithstanding  the  refusal 
of  city  council  to  arrest  him,  he  would  yet  be  taken  by 
force.  The  report  went  abroad  that  when  the  grocers, 
coopers  and  sailors  had  come  to  the  St.  Jacob's  Church 
and  surrounded  it,  then  the  Elector's  cavalry  could  come 
and  capture  him  and  the  other  attendants  on  Protestant 
worship.  Olevianus'  mother  heard  these  rumors.  She 
was  told  that  some  young  men  out  of  the  Catholic  re- 
ligious houses  had  come  to  an  understanding  that  they 
would  climb  into  her  house  at  night  in  order  to  seize  her 
son.  In  her  motherly  anxiety  she  told  this  to  some  of 
the  congregation.  And  they  promised  to  look  after  his 
safety.  From  that  time  on  some  of  the  Protestants  always 
went  with  Olevianus,  as  a  body-guard,  when  he  went  to 
the  Church,  as  they  did  also  with  Flinsbach.  The  Prot- 
testants  also  watched  at  Olevianus'  house  by  night.  Later 
they  gave  the  watcher  and  piper  in  the  Gangolph's  tower 
a  paper  flag,  with  the  request  to  hand  it  out  if  there  were 
danger.  This  they  did  to  save  a  panic  and  to  get  the 
women  and  children  away  in  case  of  danger.  The  stead- 
fastness of  the  Protestants  is  shown  by  a  remark  of  the 
sheriflf  Pisport.  He  said :  "Our  Protestant  Confession 
must  go  forward,  even  if  it  be  a  cross."  Again  and  again 
the  Protestants  declared  that  they  would  give  up  prop- 
erty and  life  if  necessary  for  their  faith.     When  either 


OLEVIANUS  AT  TREVES  225 

of  the  ministers  preached  the  Church  was  always  very 
full.    Even  the  chancel  and  windows  were  full  of  people. 

III.      THE   SECOND   ENTRANCE  OF   THE  ELECTOR   OF  TREVES 

We  now  come  to  the  third  and  last  stage  of  this  his- 
tory. The  Elector  from  Pfalzel  plotted  to  gain  control 
of  the  city  by  oppressions  from  without  and  plottings 
with  the  Catholics  within  the  city.  On  October  2,  he 
sent  word  to  the  city  asking  that  the  new  Protestant 
preacher  should  be  arrested  and  cast  into  prison.  As  it 
was  not  done  he  began  the  more  to  oppress  the  city  from 
the  outside.  And  it  soon  had  its  effect  on  the  citizens. 
On  October  3,  he  sent  to  the  city  council  two  com- 
munications, one  denying  that  the  Augsburg  Confession 
was  to  be  permitted  in  Treves,  and  the  other  charging 
John  Steuss  with  being  a  law-breaker  because  he 
permitted  a  layman  to  preach.  He  asked  that  their 
preachers  be  arrested  until  brought  to  trial  as  criminals. 
He  gave  the  council  three  days  in  which  to  give  him  an 
answer.  When  this  was  received  by  the  city  council  it 
at  once  led  to  a  sharp  division  between  the  Catholics  and 
the  Protestants.  But  at  this  division  the  Catholic  party, 
who  had  not  been  able  to  do  anything  before  because  its 
head  Burgomaster  Steuss  was  a  Protestant,  now  found 
a  head  and  leader  in  the  second  Burgomaster  Ohren. 

The  Elector  then  proceeded  to  carry  on  a  peaceable 
seige  of  the  town.  Thus  he  did  not  permit  the  farmers 
to  bring  provisions  into  the  town.  Its  citizens,  who  came 
out  of  it,  were  caught  and  sometimes  abused,  then 
brought  to  Pfalzel,  and  under  oath  questioned  as  to  what 
they  knew  about  the  actions  of  the  Protestants  in  the  city. 
After  a  few  days  they  would  be  set  free.  He  held  up  the 
city's  market  ship  on  the  river  Moselle  that  came  from 


226  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

Frankfort,  at  Berncastle,  so  it  could  not  get  to  the  town. 
The  fields  and  gardens  of  the  citizens  were  laid  waste  by 
his  men.  At  the  same  time  he  increased  the  number  of 
his  soldiers  and  retainers.  The  city  was  thus  completely 
cut  ofif  from  outside  communications. 

All  this  had  its  effect  on  the  Catholics  within  the  city. 
They  felt  something  must  be  done  to  propitiate  the 
Elector,  so  on  October  4  the  secretary  of  the  city  coun- 
cil, Dronkman,  with  several  other  appointees,  went  to 
Steuss  and  asked  him  to  give  up  his  Protestant  worship 
in  order  to  gain  the  good  will  of  the  Elector.  The  Prot- 
estants replied  that  they  would  be  willing  to  suspend  the 
preaching  as  soon  as  their  two  delegates  sent  to  Spires 
would  return.  These  had  been  sent  by  them  so  as  to  gain 
information  about  the  legal  rights  of  the  Lutherans  in 
Germany.  These  delegates  were  also  to  go  to  Zwei- 
briicken  to  get  Flinsbach's  order,  by  which  Zweibriicken 
sent  him  to  Treves.  This  they  did  to  show  the  Catholics 
that  he  was  there  at  the  order  of  Zweibriicken  and  that 
if  the  Elector  did  anything  to  Flinsbach  it  might  involve 
him  in  complications  with  the  Duke  of  Zweibriicken.  It 
also  showed  that  the  Protestants  were  somewhat  under 
the  protection  of  that  prince.  Meanwhile,  the  citizens 
suffered  more  and  more  from  want  of  food. 

On  October  5,  the  Catholics  and  some  Protestants 
went  to  the  city  hall,  when  the  answer  of  the  Protestants 
was  read,  and  the  guild  halls  took  it  up  in  their  various 
guild  houses.  The  Catholics,  on  the  basis  of  the  reports 
from  the  guild  halls,  demanded  that  the  Protestant  preach- 
ing should  cease  and  that  the  ministers  be  arrested,  and 
that  all  of  them  must  go  to  the  city  hall  before  sundown, 
where  they  would  be  protected.  On  that  day  the  Prot- 
estants repeated  their  promise  not  to  hold  services.  On 
October  6,  because  of  greater  pressure  from  the  Cath- 


OLEVIANUS  AT  TREVES  227 

olics,  they  agreed  not  to  have  religious  services  until  the 
Elector  permitted  or  the  matter  was  settled  in  court,  and 
also  that  they  would  not  leave  the  city  until  they  had 
given  answer  to  the  Elector.  On  October  6,  the  end 
of  the  three  days  given  them  by  the  Elector  to  answer 
his  communication,  a  committee  of  nine  Catholic  coun- 
cilors, with  Burgomaster  Ohren  at  their  head,  went  to 
Pfalzel  to  tell  the  Elector  what  had  been  done  and  to 
pray  his  mercy  and  favor. 

On  the  same  day  the  Protestants  were  called  before 
the  city  council  and  asked  to  sign  a  paper  that  they  would 
have  their  preaching  cease  until  the  Elector  gave  per- 
mission, and  that  they  would  not  leave  Treves  until  they 
had  given  answer  to  the  Elector.  Steuss  and  the  other 
leaders  of  the  Protestants  agreed.  Meanwhile,  the  ex- 
citement within  the  city  was  increased  by  the  Elector. 
Every  new  arrest  of  a  citizen  or  new  act  of  severity  out- 
side of  the  city  only  increased  the  bitterness  of  the  Cath- 
olics against  the  Protestants,  whom  they  regarded  as  the 
cause  of  all  their  trouble.  Both  parties  armed  them- 
selves, and,  on  October  5,  remained  armed  till  2  o'clock. 
The  Catholics  did  not  do  anything,  as  they  seem  to  have 
felt  themselves  the  weaker  in  power. 

By  October  7,  the  oppressions  of  the  Elector  from 
outside,  and  his  plottings  with  the  Catholics  within  the 
city  had  stirred  up  such  a  bitter  feeling  between  Cath- 
olics and  Protestants  that  the  latter  were  under  arms 
from  morning  till  evening,  as  they  feared  betrayal.  On 
October  8th  a  new  message  came  from  the  Elector  mak- 
ing the  ofifer  that  because  of  the  faithfulness  of  the  Cath- 
olic citizens  the  Protestants  would  be  allowed  to  leave 
if  they  would  pay  20,000  dollars.  If  not,  they  would  be 
charged  with  capital  crimes.  And  criminal  prosecution  in 
those  days  was  a  more  serious  thing  than  even  to-day. 


228  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

for  their  punishments  were  much  more  severe.  For  com- 
paratively light  offenses  men  were  beheaded  or  hung. 
The  two  criminal  charges  against  Olevianus  and  the 
Protestants  were  heresy  and  conspiracy,*  both  of  which 
were  punishable  with  death.  We  thus  see  the  gravity  of 
the  situation  of  Olevianus  and  his  friends,  especially  in 
the  hands  of  a  hostile  court. 

On  October  lo,  the  Elector  cut  off  the  water  of  the 
stream  that  flowed  through  Treves,  thus  preventing  their 
mills  from  having  water  and  their  men  from  working. 
More  and  more  the  Catholics  blamed  the  Protestants  for 
all  this,  and  the  more  moderate  Catholics  more  and  more 
went  over  to  the  more  fanatical.  The  declaration  of  the 
electoral  council,  that  for  all  the  damages  the  city  had 
suft'ered,  the  Protestants  would  have  to  pay,  roused  the 
greediness  of  those  without  property.  The  populace 
filled  the  beer-gardens,  as  they  had  nothing  to  do,  and 
said :  "drink  much,  for  the  Lutherans  will  have  to  pay 
the  bill."  The  feeling  between  Protestants  and  Catholics 
became  so  acute  that  both  sides  began  arming.  The 
rumor  spread  abroad  that  the  Protestants  intended  to  be- 
tray the  city,  and  that  they  had  sent  delegates  to  get 
military  help  from  the  Protestant  nobles.  Thus,  their 
sending  of  the  delegates  to  Spires  and  Zweibriicken,  of 
which  we  have  spoken,  was  misinterpreted  and  used 
against  them.  On  that  day  the  little  paper  flag,  which 
the  Protestants  had  placed  on  the  Gangolph's  tower  as 
a  signal  against  danger,  was  found  by  the  Catholics  and 
used  as  a  proof  that  they  intended  to  betray  the  city. 
Thus,  every  act  of  theirs  was  perverted  to  stir  up  the 
Catholics  against  them.  Flinsbach  wrote  (October  lo) 
that  matters  were  continually  becoming  worse.     Outside 

*  Goebel  says  they  were  charged  with  riot,  treason  and  arson 
and  attempt  at  killing. 


OLEVIANUS  AT  TREVES 


229 


the  city  there  was  plundering,  within,  the  citizens  were 
divided.     He  prayed  for  help. 

On  October  11,  the  Elector  gained  the  victory  also 
with  the  moderate  Catholics,  for  the  Catholic  members 
of  the  city  council  met  and  decided  that  on  the  following 
morning  each  of  the  guilds  should  meet  and  consider  the 
situation.  The  increased  embittering  of  the  Catholic  citi- 
zens against  the  Protestants  made  it  easy  to  see  the  result. 

Finally,  on  this  day,  the  Catholic  city  council  de- 
cided to  do  what  the  Elector  had  long  wanted  them  to 
do,  but  they  had  refused.  They  decided  to  arrest  the 
two  Protestant  preachers  and  the  Protestant  members  of 
their  council.  They,  however,  mitigated  it  into  an  order 
that  these  should  come  to  this  city  hall  and  remain  there 
until  permitted  to  leave.  Only  Burgomaster  Steuss  could 
remain  in  his  house,  but  was  under  house-arrest,  and  he 
did  not,  therefore,  dare  to  leave  it.  They  also  ordered 
the  head  of  the  weaver's  guild,  Ulrich  of  Aichorn,  and 
the  head  of  the  tailors'  guild,  John  of  Neuerberg,  to  come 
to  the  city  hall.  The  Protestants  felt  that  all  this  was 
a  violation  of  their  rights,  yet  they  obeyed,  as  they  wished 
to  show  they  were  not  conspirators,  but  law-abiding  citi- 
zens. But  before  they  did  it  they  filed  a  protest  with  a 
notary.  By  sundown  they  were  all,  the  two  ministers  and 
eight  others,  in  the  city  hall,  under  virtual  arrest,  but  not 
put  into  prison. 

These  Protestant  leaders  sent  a  paper  (October  12) 
to  the  city  council,  asking  that  there  be  a  meeting  of  the 
citizens,  so  as  to  protect  the  liberties  of  the  city  so  that 
they  might  all  stand  together  against  the  Elector.  The 
city  council  received  this,  but  ordered  Steuss  to  give  up 
the  key  to  the  council  chamber,  as  he  was  no  longer  recog- 
nized as  burgomaster.  The  city  council  then  notified  the 
Elector  of  what  they  had  done,  hoping  he  would  now  lift 


230  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

the  siege.  With  their  deputation  to  the  Elector  were 
sent  several  Protestants,  who  also  took  the  Duke  of  Zwei- 
briicken's  order  to  Flinsbach,  in  order  to  show  it  to  the 
Elector.  The  Elector  refused  to  recognize  these  Prot- 
estants and  arrested  them  and  kept  them  in  prison  for 
eleven  days;  and  one  of  them,  Zehnder,  the  city  syndic, 
who  was  the  lawyer  of  the  Protestants,  he  kept  there  for 
months. 

Then  the  Protestants  began  appealing  for  aid  to  the 
neighboring  Protestant  princes,  Zweibriicken,  the  Palatin- 
ate, and  even  Wurtemberg.  The  Elector,  hearing  of  this, 
tightened  his  seige  on  the  town.  One  of  their  messengers 
was  caught  as  he  returned  to  the  city,  and  kept  in  the 
cold  prison  in  Simeon's  tower.  In  vain,  the  Duke  of 
Zweibrucken  interceded  for  him,  for  he  was  one  of  his 
servants ;  but  only  after  twenty-two  days  was  he  left 
out  and  permitted  to  go  to  his  house,  and  was  not  freed 
till  December  15.  The  Elector  now  approached  the 
city  council  about  opening  the  city  gates  to  him.  About 
that  time  (October  16)  the  Protestant  prisoners  had 
their  liberties  curtailed.  Before  this  they  had  been  al- 
lowed freedom  within  the  city  hall,  and  their  food  was 
sent  in  to  them  by  a  leading  Protestant.  But  now  the 
latter  was  cut  off  from  them.  Flinsbach  wrote  (October 
19)  to  his  prince,  giving  a  deplorable  condition  of  the 
city,  as  it  was  without  food  or  water,  that  neither  party 
had  confidence  in  the  other,  and  that  both  lived  in  con- 
stant fear. 

Meanwhile,  the  Elector,  from  without  the  city,  con- 
tinued his  negotiations  with  the  Catholic  city  council, 
but  the  latter  hesitated  to  let  him  come  in,  lest  he  might, 
with  his  soldiers,  jeopardize  the  liberties  of  the  city. 
During  this  time  the  Catholics  within  the  city  labored 
with  the  weak  Protestants,  so  as  to  get  them  back  to 


OLEVIANUS  AT  TREVES  231 

Catholicism.  As  a  result  the  Catholics  told  the  Elector, 
on  October  18,  that  the  greater  part  of  the  Protestants 
had  come  back  to  Catholicism.  This  was,  however,  an 
exaggeration ;  but  of  the  guilds,  only  the  weaver's  guild, 
as  a  guild,  remained  true  to  Protestantism. 

Finally,  on  October  26,  about  a  month  after  he  had 
left,  the  Elector  made  his  second  entry  into  the  city,  the 
city  council  having  agreed  to  all  his  conditions.  He 
entered  with  200  cavalry,  a  company  of  600  armed  serv- 
ants and  a  following  of  50  religious  and  secular  adherents. 
These  soldiers  and  servants  he  quartered  not  on  the  Cath- 
olics, but  on  the  Protestants  who  bore  it  with  great  suffer- 
ing. The  one  to  sufifer  most  severely  was  Olevianus' 
mother,  who  had  ten  quartered  on  her  at  house  in  the 
Fleishgasse.  This  quartering  of  the  soldiers  on  the  Prot- 
estants caused  the  weak-hearted  Protestants  to  give  up 
because  it  was  so  exhausting  to  them,  but  a  Zweibriicken 
correspondent  wrote  that  500  remained  firm. 

The  first  act  of  the  Elector  was  to  get  rid  of  Flins- 
bach.  On  October  28  he  was  brought  to  the  palace 
charged  with  heresy,  incitement  to  riot  and  disobedience. 
There  he  defended  his  acts.  The  Elector's  councilors 
were  careful  to  ask  him  what  religion  Olevianus  belonged 
to.  They  hoped  in  that  way  he  might  let  something  drop 
that  would  show  that  Olevianus  was  a  Calvinist,  so  that 
this  might  be  used  against  Olevianus  afterward  in  his 
trial.  They  were  evidently  getting  ready  for  a  severe 
punishment  on  Olevianus,  upon  whom  they  looked  as  the 
main  cause  of  all  the  trouble.  But  Flinsbach  gave  them 
no  aid.  He  was  freed  on  October  31,  and  two  days 
later,  accompanied  by  two  of  their  cavalry,  he  arrived 
at  Zweibrucken. 

Meanwhile,  the  Elector  also  still  further  curtailed 
the  liberties  of  the   Protestant  prisoners.     On   October 


232  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

2^]  they  were  not  allowed  to  walk  about  in  the  city  hall, 
but  must  remain  in  their  rooms. 

In  the  meanwhile  the  Elector  and  the  council  were 
laying  plans  to  bring  criminal  charges  against  the 
prisoners.  The  real  cause  of  the  matter — namely,  their 
adherence  to  the  Augsburg  Confession — the  Catholics  did 
not  wish  to  bring  forward  prominently,  as  it  might  in- 
volve them  with  the  Lutheran  princes,  who  might  bring 
them  before  the  bar  of  the  empire.  So  some  other  charge 
must  be  trumped  up.  They,  therefore,  sought  to  find  ma- 
terial for  a  charge  against  Olevianus  that  he  was  a  Calvin- 
ist,  and,  therefore,  he  and  his  followers  could  not  be  pro- 
tected by  the  law  that  granted  liberty  to  Lutherans.  As 
Flinsbach  had  not  incriminated  Olevianus  in  his  exami- 
nation, they  had  Olevianus'  books  searched,  so  as  to  find 
proof  that  he  was  a  Calvinist.    But  it  was  in  vain. 

It  only  remained  for  the  Elector  to  indict  them  as 
rebels,  but  this  had  weak  grounds  for  defense.  Still  the 
Catholics  made  this  the  charge  against  them,  and  in  three 
forms — sedition,  rebellion  and  breach  of  the  religious 
peace.  These  charges  were  brought  against  Burgomaster 
Steuss,  the  sheriffs,  Peter  Sirck,  Otto  Seel  and  John 
Pisport,  against  councilors  Peter  Steuss,  Ulrich  of 
Aichorn,  John  Steub,  John  of  Neuerberg,  Dr.  Casper 
Olevianus  and  four  others,  thirteen  in  all.  It  was  charged 
that  these,  instead  of  taking  to  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
had  joined  themselves  to  a  schismatic  fanatic,  Olevianus. 
These  had,  against  the  order  of  the  rector  of  the  uni- 
versity and  council,  allowed  Olevianus  to  preach  first 
in  the  school  and  then  in  St.  Jacob's  Church,  all  of  which 
was  against  the  order  of  the  Elector.  They  had  conspired 
against  the  Elector,  abused  his  priest  when  sent  to  St. 
Jacob's  Church  to  preach,  and  had  armed  themselves. 
The  flag  of  the  Gangolph's  tower  was  brought  in  as  evi- 


OLEVIANUS  AT  TREVES  233 

dence  against  them  as  a  signal  to  their  friends  outside. 
Their  actions  had  compelled  the  Catholics  to  arm,  etc. 
The  Catholic  council  added  that  the  Protestants  had  been 
in  communication  with  foreign  princes  and  they  (the 
Catholics)  had  suffered  losses  amounting  to  20,000  dol- 
lars. They  asked  that  the  Protestants  be  compelled  to 
leave  the  city. 

On  November  14  the  Protestants  were  notified  that 
the  Elector  had  finally  decided  to  settle  matters  if  they 
would  pay  these  costs  and  leave  the  city,  otherwise  they 
must  suffer  as  criminals.  He  demanded  their  answer  that 
day.  But  all  the  Protestant  prisoners  refused  to  consider 
these  terms.  In  their  discussion  Seel  said  that  this  was 
treating  them  as  the  Jews  were  treated,  by  a  tax  levy, 
Peter  Steuss  declared  that  before  he  would  give  anything 
they  might  take  his  life.  Olevianus  declared  that  he 
could  not  give  anything,  as  he  had  nothing,  and  that 
what  he  has  done  had  been  done  for  the  good  of  the 
people.  He  would  not  give  up  the  Word  of  God  or 
preach  what  was  not  in  agreement  with  it.  Thus  the 
Protestants  increased  the  danger  of  suffering  for  the  se- 
rious crimes  charged  against  them  by  their  refusal  of  the 
terms.     Nothing  now  remained  but  to  try  them. 

So  on  November  15  the  Elector  formally  brought 
criminal  charges  against  them,  and  they  were  brought 
out  for  trial.  The  600  armed  servants  of  the  Elector 
were  stationed  in  the  market.  Fifty-one  armed  citizens 
brought  the  Protestant  prisoners  from  the  city  hall  to  the 
court  house,  before  which  the  600  followers  of  the  Elector 
remained.  The  charges  against  them  were  read.  They 
denied  them  and  handed  in  a  paper  in  which  they  de- 
clared that  they  wanted  to  defend  themselves.  They  re- 
peated their  request  to  be  allowed  to  leave  the  city,  but 
declared  that  they  would  not  pay  any  money,  as  that 


234  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

would  be  giving  tribute  such  as  was  demanded  of  the 
Jews.  They  were  wiUing  for  amicable  negotiations,  but 
to  a  jurisdiction  like  this,  forced  up  on  them,  they  were 
not  favorable. 

During  the  trial,  when  Olevianus'  right  to  preach  was 
denied  because  he  was  unordained,  he  declared:  "If  I 
do  not  happen  to  have  permission  from  the  Roman  magis- 
trates or  Parisian  sophists,  I  have,  nevertheless,  received 
it  from  God.  From  him  I  have  received  the  command  to 
employ  the  talents  entrusted  to  me.  The  rector  of  the 
university  did  not  forbid  me,  as  has  been  charged,  but 
he  said :  'Preach  the  Bible  for  the  priests  need  it."  And 
the  city  council  did  not  forbid  me  to  teach  theology  in 
Latin.  I  know  that  nothing  was  preached  contrary  to 
the  Word  of  God.  Only  once  did  I  speak  against  a  min- 
ister of  the  Elector,  and  that  was  because  he,  a  Jesuit, 
had  preached  contrary  to  the  Bible,  and  among  other 
things  had  said  that  the  blood  of  Jesus  was  not  sufficient 
for  our  sins.  And  that  priest  had  preached  without 
permission  of  the  city  council,  to  whom  the  St.  Jacob's 
Church  belonged.  And  he  had  come  to  cause  a  tumult, 
for  which  I  am  charged.  I  deny  that  the  Protestants 
were  about  to  riot,  for  their  weapons  were  not  guns,  but 
the  Word  of  God." 

After  they  had  been  heard  they  were  taken  back  from 
the  court  house  to  their  prison.  The  next  day  the  prison 
rules  were  made  stricter.  They  were  not  permitted  to 
be  together  any  longer.  Olevianus,  with  three  others, 
were  thrown  into  the  prison  in  the  city  hall,  and  the 
others  were  placed  in  other  rooms.  Olevianus  and  Sirck 
complained  that  in  the  prison  they  could  die  because  of 
the  cold.  So  they  were  all  put  into  a  room  in  the  city 
hall,  called  the  "flour-room,"  where  the  rest  were. 

While   in   prison   Olevianus,   on   October    ii,   wrote 


OLEVIANUS  AT  TREVES  235 

the  following  letter.  It  comes  to  us  like  Bunyan's 
"Pilgrim's  Progress,"  out  of  prison.  It  is  written  to  the 
ministers  of  Strasburg.* 

"Grace  and  peace.  Although  we  may  have  one  foot 
in  destruction,  we  have  been  unwilling  to  pass  by  this 
opportunity  of  writing  to  you  what  was  denied  to  us  daily 
in  afflictions  and  chains.  We  desire  to  truly  make  known 
to  you  our  condition  and  to  pour  out  our  hearts  to  your 
sympathy.  This  is  the  sum  of  our  affairs.  About  half 
of  the  citizens,  and  especially  of  the  councilors  of  this 
city  have  embraced  the  gospel.  But  God  is  permitting 
our  adversaries  to  proceed  with  unheard-of  methods,  so 
that  Rev.  Mr.  Flinsbach,  a  man  of  prudence  and  singular 
piety,  has  been  detained  in  custody.  Neither  do  they 
seem  to  be  satisfied  merely  with  exiling  the  rest  of  us, 
but  they  are  also  trying  to  mulct  us  out  of  a  great  part  of 
our  possessions.  Meanwhile,  that  they  may  remit  some 
of  their  severity,  the  ministers  of  Germany  and  legates 
from  the  princes  are  laboring.  What  they  may  effect  is 
problematical,  except  that  we  are  certain  that  we  will 
be  sent  into  exile.  We  seek  from  you.  Reverend  Fathers, 
that  you  commend  us  and  ours  to  God,  the  Father  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  your  prayers,  as  becomes  members 
of  one  and  the  same  body.  D.  Matthaeus,  who  brings  this 
letter,  will  narrate  to  you  what  is  happening  to  us.  Fare- 
well. 

"Casper  Olevianus, 
"Minister  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  Written  to  You  in  the 
Name  of  All  the  Imprisoned  and  Faithful  Citizens." 

A  second  hearing  was  given  to  these  prisoners  on 
November  29,  in  which  they  were  required  to  answer  the 
charges.  As  these  were  not  given  to  them,  and  as  they 
had  had  no  attorney  they  were  in  a  deplorable  position. 
Their  Protestant  advocate,  Zehnder,  the  Elector,  as  we 
have  seen,  had  imprisoned  at  Pfalzel  before  he  came  into 
the  city,  and  he  refused  to  release  him  so  as  to  defend 

*We  have  largely  abbreviated  it. 


236  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

them.  They  finally  got  an  advocate  from  Strasburg  on 
November  24,  but  he  had  only  five  days  to  prepare  for 
their  defense.  But  before  these  had  passed,  circum- 
stances occurred  which  gave  an  entirely  new  appearance 
to  things — namely,  the  arrival  of  the  ambassadors  of  the 
foreign  Protestant  princes,  who  had  come  to  intercede 
for  them.  But  for  their  arrival  Olevianus  and  his  friends 
would  have  probably  suffered  the  full  penalty  for  their 
crimes  charged  against  them — namely,  rebellion  and 
heresy. 

For  while  all  this  was  going  on,  the  Protestants  in 
other  places  were  becoming  interested  in  their  cause. 
They  began  sending  in  appeals  to  the  authorities  of 
Treves  for  mercy  to  these  prisoners.  However,  all  was 
in  vain.  Even  the  plea  of  Elector  Frederick  III,  of  the 
Palatinate,  great  prince  that  he  was,  had  no  effect.  He 
had  sent  two  ambassadors  to  intercede  with  the  Elector 
of  Treves,  who  arrived  October  26  at  Pfalzel.  They  de- 
clared that  the  Elector  had  imprisoned  the  Protestants  be- 
cause they  were  adherents  of  the  Augsburg  Confession. 
But  the  Elector  of  Treves  replied  that  the  reason  for  it 
was  Olevianus'  Calvinism,  and  also  their  acts  of  riot  and 
sedition.  The  ambassadors  replied  that  their  master. 
Elector  Frederick  HI,  of  the  Palatinate,  knew  better 
than  that.  When  Elector  Frederick  heard  that  they  were 
threatened  with  a  criminal  process,  he  sent  an  ambassador 
asking  that  an  impartial  commission  be  appointed,  who 
would  hear  the  case  and  make  a  decision.  But  the  Elector 
of  Treves  refused  all  these  appeals,  so  Elector  Frederick 
HI  finally  determined  to  hold  a  conference  of  the  neigh- 
boring Protestant  princes.  He  invited  the  Duke  of  Wur- 
temberg,  the  two  princes  of  Baden  and  three  other  princes 
to  send  representatives  to  the  city  of  Worms,  on  Novem- 
ber 19,  to  consider  how  these  persecuted  Protestants  in 


OLEVIANUS  AT  TREVES 


237 


Treves  might  gain  relief.  (He  also  notified  the  two  great 
Protestant  princes  of  Germany,  the  Electors  of  Saxony 
and  Brandenburg  of  what  was  taking  place.) 

The  princes  sent  their  delegates  to  Worms  on  No- 
vember 20.  They  continued  in  session  for  two  days.  The 
legal  question  before  them  was:  "Was  Treves  an  im- 
perial city  or  not?  If  it  was,  then  was  it  under  the  Augs- 
burg Peace  of  1555,  which  guaranteed  freedom  of  wor- 
ship to  the  Lutherans?"  They  decided  it  would  be  best 
to  send  a  deputation  to  Treves.  From  Worms  they  went 
to  Treves,  where  they  arrived,  twenty-six  in  number,  an 
imposing  body,  on  November  2^,  and  were  later  followed 
by  seven  more  ambassadors.  Then  began  the  negotia- 
tions. The  Elector  of  Treves,  at  first  entirely  refused 
to  allow  any  mitigation  of  his  charges  against  the  Prot- 
testants  and  proved  very  stubborn.  They  pled  for  the 
rights  of  the  adherents  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  His 
reply  was  that  these  Protestants  were  rebels.  He  de- 
clared that  Olevianus  was  not  protected  by  that,  as  he 
was  a  Calvinist.  Their  leader,  however,  called  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Elector,  as  he  said  he  was  treating  them  as 
rebels,  and  not  in  regard  to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  to 
the  offer  he  had  once  made  to  them  eight  days  before, 
that  he  would  cease  his  enmity  if  they  would  give  up 
the  Augsburg  Confession.  This  proved  that  he  himself 
confessed  that  his  opposition  to  them  was  not  for  their 
rebellion,  but  because  they  were  Lutherans.  On  Novem- 
ber 30  these  ambassadors  were  given  an  audience  with 
the  prisoners  in  the  city  hall,  where  the  prisoners  stated 
in  their  own  defense  what  they  had  done.  On  the  next 
day  the  ambassadors  again  visited  the  prisoners.  They 
declared  that,  as  Erfurt  and  other  episcopal  cities  had 
accepted  the  Augsburg  Confession,  they  had  the  same 
right.     They  declared  that  they  were  willing  to  leave 


238  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

the  city,  but  not  to  pay  the  costs.  Further  negotiations 
followed  between  the  ambassadors,  the  Elector  and  the 
city  council.  On  the  one  hand  the  Elector  persisted  in 
declaring  them  rebels  ("a  viper  brood"),  and  that  they 
must  be  punished  as  such ;  on  the  other  hand,  the  Prot- 
estants denied  this,  and  refused  to  pay  the  costs. 

Finally,  by  December  17,  after  much  and  repeated 
pressure  by  the  ambassadors,  the  Elector  had  come  down 
from  20,000  dollars  to  3,000  dollars,  and  the  Protestants 
were  to  leave  Treves  within  eight  days.  All  the  Prot- 
estants agreed  to  this  except  Olevianus.  He  stood  out, 
even  though  his  refusal  might  mean  death  to  him,  for 
there  was  something  in  it  to  which  he  could  not  con- 
scientiously agree.  At  the  urgent  solicitation  of  the  am- 
bassadors he  finally  consented  to  agree  to  a  Latin  form 
of  it,  but  only  if  he  could  satisfy  his  conscience  by  being 
allowed  to  make  a  protest  against  the  charge  that  he  had 
despised  the  Elector's  express  prohibition  of  his  preach- 
ing, and  had  confessed  that  he  was  the  cause  of  the  dis- 
orders at  which  the  Elector  felt  himself  greatly  injured. 
The  agreement  seemed  to  him  to  be  a  denial  of  his  doc- 
trine and  position  as  a  preacher.  However,  he  was  not 
compelled  to  take  part  in  the  payment  of  any  money. 

On  December  19  the  prisoners  were  brought  before 
the  electoral  council  in  the  city  hall,  and  were  asked  if 
they  accepted  the  terms.  To  this  Sirck,  in  the  name  of 
all,  replied :  "Yes."  Only  Olevianus  presented  his  pro- 
test, as  mentioned  above.  He  declared  before  God  that 
he  had  preached  the  gospel  in  its  purity  and  according  to 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  on  which  Confession  he  de- 
clared he  still  stood.  What  there  was  in  the  agreement 
that  might  be  interpreted  against  the  true  Christian 
religion  or  the  Augsburg  Confession  he  would  not  con- 
cede.   Only  on  condition  that  he  made  this  protest  was  he 


OLEVIANUS  AT  TREVES 


239 


willing  to  accept  the  agreement.  They  then  signed  it  when 
Olevianus,  a  second  time,  repeated  his  protest.  They  were 
then  set  free.  We  thus  see  the  conscientiousness  and 
bravery  of  Olevianus  in  spite  of  the  danger  in  doing  so. 

Olevianus  seems  to  have  left  Treves  before  the  rest 
on  December  22,  in  company  with  the  ambassadors  of 
the  foreign  princes.  The  count  of  Erbach,  the  ambassa- 
dor of  the  Palatinate,  took  him  with  him  to  Heidelberg. 
It  seems  Elector  Frederick  III  had  not  forgotten  how 
this  young  preacher  had,  some  years  before,  plunged  into 
the  river  at  Bourges,  in  France,  to  save  his  son  from 
drowning,  and  had  almost  himself  drowned  in  the  attempt. 
At  Heidelberg  the  Elector  made  him  the  teacher  in  the 
College  of  Wisdom,  and  sometime  later  he  was  made 
professor  of  theology  in  the  university,  and  later  preacher 
in  the  great  city  church  at  Heidelberg,  the  Holy  Ghost 
Church,  and  superintendent  of  the  Church  of  the  Provi- 
dence of  the  Palatinate.  Although  he  declared  his  ad- 
herence to  the  Augsburg  Confession  at  Treves,  yet  Ole- 
vianus was  at  heart  a  Calvinist.  Indeed,  almost  as  soon 
as  he  got  to  Heidelberg,  he  wrote  to  Calvin  about  the 
introduction  of  the  Calvinistic  church  government  into 
the  Palatinate.  By  becoming  a  Calvinist  he  did  not  feel 
himself  out  of  harmony  with  the  Augsburg  Confession 
any  more  than  did  Elector  Frederick  III,  when  he  pub- 
lished the  Heidelberg  catechism  three  years  later,  for 
both  believed  that  the  Altered  Augsburg  Confession — 
the  Augsburg  Confession  of  1540 — was  large  enough  to 
include  the  Reformed.  In  1576,  Olevianus  had  a  repeti- 
tion of  his  experience  at  Treves,  though  not  so  severe,  as 
he  was  again  banished  from  Heidelberg  for  being  Re- 
formed by  Elector  Lewis,  who  was  a  high  Lutheran. 

The  two  brothers,  Steuss,  shook  the  dust  of  the  city 
from  their  feet  on  the  day  before  Christmas.     Sirck,  Pis- 


240  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

port  and  Monday  left  on  the  day  after  Christmas,  Seel, 
on  December  27.  Most  of  them  went  to  the  neighboring 
districts  of  Beldenz  and  Zweibriicken,  which  was  Luth- 
eran. The  brothers  Steuss,  Sirck  and  Seel,  two  months 
later,  nobly  paid  the  whole  amount  required — 3,000  dol- 
lars— out  of  their  own  pockets,  so  that  the  rest  of  the 
Protestants  need  not  pay. 

After  the  departure  of  the  leaders  of  the  Protestants, 
the  Catholics  made  repeated  efforts  to  convert  them 
back  to  the  Catholic  faith.  In  this  the  Elector  used  every 
form  of  persuasion.  On  December  23,  the  day  after  the 
foreign  ambassadors  had  left,  the  council  gave  order  that 
all  who  held  to  the  Augsburg  Confession  must  leave  the 
city  within  fourteen  days.  Lenninger,  with  other  leaders 
of  the  Protestants,  appeared  before  the  council,  saying 
that  within  eight  days  they  would  leave.  In  all,  forty-six 
persons  of  the  different  guilds  declared  before  the  coun- 
cil that  they  were  Protestants  and  would  leave  the  city. 
With  their  departure  went  all  the  leaders  of  Protestant- 
ism. But  they  were  not  all  the  Protestants,  for  on  Janu- 
ary 12,  of  the  next  year,  the  secretary  of  the  city  council, 
Dronkman,  declared  there  were  300  Protestants  in  the 
city.  Every  effort  was  used  to  reconvert  them  to  Cath- 
olicism, and  on  Jauary  4,  1560,  forty-seven  went  back 
to  the  old  religion.  The  guilds  were  called  up  separately, 
and  each  member  was  required  to  become  a  Catholic. 
But  this  did  not  fully  succeed.  On  January  9,  ninety- 
eight  returned  to  the  Catholic  faith,  but  on  January  27 
thirty-five  more  Protestants  left  the  city. 

So  Treves  freed  herself  from  heresy,  but  she  struck 
herself  a  death  blow  when  she  drove  out  the  Protestants, 
for  they  were  her  leading  citizens  and  best  artizans.  The 
industries  of  the  city  fell  off  greatly.  Treves,  from  being 
one  of  the  most  important  of  the  cities  of  Germany  and 


OLEVIANUS  AT  TREVES  24I 

the  seat  of  one  of  the  great  Electors  of  Germany,  went 
back  to  a  third-rate  city  and  worse.  She  has  not  pro- 
gressed very  much  in  the  last  300  years.  And  in  spite  of 
all  the  measures  against  Protestantism,  some  of  the  clergy 
inclined  to  it  in  1560,  and  in  1564  it  was  said  that  many 
of  the  citizens  went  out  of  the  city  for  the  Protestant 
Lord's  Supper.  Olevianus'  mother  still  lived  in  the  city, 
of  course,  as  quietly  as  possible.  But  when  twenty  years 
later  the  next  Elector  drove  out  all  the  remaining  Prot- 
estants, she  had  to  leave,  and  she  went  to  Herborn,  where 
her  son  had  started  a  university,  and  where  he  died. 
She  survived  him  nine  years. 

The  Elector  at  once  called  in  the  Catholic  orders, 
especially  the  Jesuits,  to  reconvert  the  Protestants.  The 
Jesuits,  in  1560,  founded  the  Whitmonday  procession, 
held  every  Whitmonday,  in  honor  of  the  driving  out  of 
the  Protestants  under  Olevianus.  This  festival  has  been 
observed  ever  since,  although  its  special  reference  to  Ole- 
vianus has  been  forgotten.  Protestantism  was  kept  out 
of  Treves  for  200  years.  No  Protestant  was  permitted  to 
live  there.  Finally  in  1784  the  Elector  issued  an  edict  of 
toleration,  and  the  French  revolution  came  along  and 
gave  them  religious  liberty.  In  1817  the  first  Protestant 
service  was  held.  To-day  Treves  is  still  an  exceedingly 
Catholic  city.  Above  her  on  a  hill  towers  a  great  statue 
of  the  Virgin  Mary,  who  seems  still  to  dominate  that 
valley.  But  there  is  now  a  large  Protestant  congrega- 
tion there,  and,  strange  to  say,  they  worship  in  the  old 
basilica,  erected  by  Constantine  about  1700  years  ago. 


16 


c 

ZACHARIAH  URSINUS 


CHAPTER  V 

URSINUS'  CONVERSION  TO  THE  REFORMED  FAITH 

The  new  data  that  we  have  been  unearthing  gives 
us  new  light  on  the  early  life  of  Ursinus,  especially  as  to 
the  steps  by  which  he  became  Reformed. 

It  is  said  that  man's  life  is  determined  by  two  causes, 
heredity  and  environment,  by  disposition  and  circum- 
stances. If  that  be  so,  let  us  examine  Ursinus'  life.  And 
we  will  see  how  heredity  and  environment  combined  to 
make  him  a  Reformed,  even  though  educated  a  Lutheran. 

And  first,  there  was  a  basis  for  the  Reformed  type  in 
Ursinus'  natural  disposition.  First,  he  was  naturally  in- 
tellectual and  later  a  giant  in  intellect.  That  his  natural 
tendency  was  to  run  out  into  intellectualism  is  shown  by 
the  dialectics  of  his  later  life.  Now  it  has  been  the 
Reformed  Church  that  has  emphasized  the  intellectual, 
whereas  the  Lutheran  has  emphasized  mysticism,  espe- 
cially in  regard  to  the  sacraments.  The  Lutherans  have 
often  charged  the  Reformed  with  rationalism,  and  the 
Reformed  have  returned  the  charge  by  saying  that  the 
Lutherans  inclined  to  superstition.  We  grant  that  the 
Reformed  emphasized  intellectualism,  though  we  do  not 
believe  that  that  necessarily  meant  rationalism.  For  there 
can  be  rationality  without  rationalism.     And  it  has  been 

242 


THE  CONVERSION  OF  URSINUS 


243 


the  peculiarity  of  the  Reformed,  that  they  always  de- 
manded that  a  thing  must  be  rational, — that  is  in  accord 
with  the  demands  of  reason,  even  though  they  could  not 
understand  it.  It  must  never  contradict  reason,  and 
even  if  too  profound  to  be  understood,  it  must  be  in 
accord  with  the  laws  of  reason.  The  Reformed  always 
gave  a  large  place  to  reason  in  their  system.  Now  this 
being  so,  we  can  see  why  the  Reformed  method  of  think- 
ing and  theology  had  an  especial  attraction  for  a  mind 
like  that  of  Ursinus.  It  allowed  larger  room  for  an 
intellect  like  his  to  consider  every  question. 

Secondly,  Ursinus,  strange  to  say,  had  a  tendency  in 
some  respects  to  the  opposite  of  intellectualism.  He  had 
a  heart  as  well  as  a  head.  And  especially  in  his  early 
life  before  and  at  the  time  he  wrote  our  catechism,  he  was 
strong  on  the  experimental,  even  though  this  hardened 
later  under  the  influence  of  study  and  his  controversies. 
For  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  he,  and  not  Olevianus,  was 
the  first  to  strike  the  keynote  of  our  catechism  in  experi- 
ence. He  first  put  in  the  question,  "What  is  thy  comfort," 
etc.,  even  in  his  first  catechism.  His  early  addresses, 
as  well  as  his  letters,  reveal  a  heart  full  of  emotion.  Well, 
if  that  was  the  case,  the  Reformed  Church  would  be  the 
one  most  suited  to  him,  for  it  has  always  been  the  church 
of  experience.  The  Lutheran  Church  emphasized  the  \ 
sacramental,  the  Reformed  the  experimental.  Both  had  * 
their  mystical  side,  but  with  the  Lutherans  the  mysticism 
was  of  the  sacraments,  with  the  Reformed,  of  personal 
experience.  This  emphasis  on  experience  made  pietism 
germane  to  the  Reformed  Church,  but  was  brought  into 
the  Lutheran  Church  from  the  outside,  for  Spener  got  it 
from  Labadie  at  Geneva.  We  are  indebted  for  this  last 
thought  to  our  dear  departed  friend,  the  late  Rev.  H.  J. 
Ruetenik,  D.D.     Well,  this  being  the  case,  we  can  see 


244  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

how  the  Reformed  Church  would  prove  attractive  to  Ur- 
sinus  and  be  the  one  he  would  finally  enter. 

For  Ursinus  was  a  great  mind.  A  great  man  is  a 
varied  man,  generally  a  union  of  opposites,  delicately 
poised  and  exquisitely  blended.  And  so  Ursinus  was  a 
union  of  the  intellectual  and  experimental.  Indeed,  Ur- 
sinus was  a  remarkable  union  of  the  intellectual,  emo- 
tional and  ethical,  each  of  which  appear  prominent  in  his 
make-up.  Of  them,  however,  as  he  grew  older,  the  in- 
tellectual bulked  largest  and  became  the  most  prominent. 
But  he  reveals  his  greatness  in  the  splendid  unity  of  this 
threefold  nature  especially  during  his  early  life,  during 
the  period  when  he  was  becoming  Reformed.  No  won- 
der the  Reformed  faith  proved  attractive  to  him.  But 
we  must  not  dwell  too  long  on  the  ontological  side  of 
this  subject.  Let  us  turn  from  heredity  to  environment 
and  see  the  influences  that  were  brought  to  bear  on  him 
that  landed  him  in  the  Reformed  Church. 

The  first  of  these  that  may  be  mentioned  was  the 
influence  of  his  pastor,  Moibanus.  We  have  seen  that 
in  his  catechism,  Moibanus  did  not  speak  as  a  high- 
Lutheran,  indeed  hardly  like  a  Lutheran  at  all.  His  doc- 
trine of  the  Lord's  Supper  emphasized  the  memorial 
aspect.  He  does  not  have  anything  about  confession  in 
connection  with  the  sacraments  as  Luther's  catechism 
has.  He  seems  to  have  represented  the  spirit  of  the 
early  reformation,  when  there  was  neither  Lutheran  or 
Reformed, — that  is  when  they  were  not  set  over  against 
each  other.  He  was  a  Lutheran  before  Luther  formu- 
lated its  doctrines  hard  and  fast.  And  after  Luther's 
death,  in  his  reaction  against  the  narrowness  and  sacra- 
mentarianism  of  the  high-Lutherans,  he  seems  to  have 
gone  over  to  Calvin.  A  letter  of  Moibanus  to  Calvin, 
written  about  the  time  that  Ursinus  went  to  the  universitv 


THE  CONVERSION  OF  URSINUS  245 

of  Wittenberg,  puts  matters  in  a  new  light.  It  reveals 
that  Moibanus  had  virtually  become  a  Calvinist.  The 
letter  is  dated  September  i,  1550,  and  reads  thus: 

"Often  enough,  my  dear  Calvin,  have  I  considered 
how  I  might  find  an  opportunity  to  write  to  you,  for  we 
live  very  far  away  from  each  other.  I  make  it  my  care 
to  seek  intercourse  with  learned  persons.  Your  writings 
meet  with  my  approval.  Your  Institutes  I  continually 
read  anew,  and  without  wishing  to  flatter  you,  I  would 
say  that  all  that  comes  from  you  meets  with  the  ap- 
probation of  great  men.  Poland  is  now  busy  with  your 
letters  and  nothing  else  finds  so  much  approval  there. 
Indeed  to  speak  truly  there  is  no  one  today,  who  places 
himself  so  courageously  against  the  Beast  (of  Rome) 
as  yourself.  You  have  enemies,  with  whom  you  bravely 
contend.  The  battle  is  now  on  for  Helena,  not  the 
Greek  one,  but  you  know  what  I  mean.  The  Lord  be 
with  you  that  you  show  yourself  brave  in  controversy. 

"In  the  meantime,  what  are  we  (Germans)  doing. 
We  are  quarreling  among  ourselves  about  the  Interim. 
You  have  placed  yourself  with  your  entire  person  against 
the  kingdom  of  Satan.  I  see  how  diligently  you  are 
working  on  the  interpretation  of  the  Pauline  writings, 
which  aim  at  the  destruction  of  the  bulwark  of  the 
enemy.  I  would  like  very  much  to  see  a  list  of  your 
works.  With  us  such  things  seldom  succeed.  I  pray 
you  to  have  your  Pauline  writings,  together  with  your 
commentaries  on  them,  printed  in  one  volume.  Because 
of  my  little  skill  in  the  interpretation  of  them,  I,  myself, 
miss  the  exact  expression  in  the  interpretation  of  their 
Hebraisms.  Paul,  it  is  true,  wrote  in  Greek,  but  after 
the  custom  of  his  people,  he  made  use  of  Hebrew  forms 
of  speech.  You  do  right,  dear  Calvin,  to  bestow  your 
time  on  such  useful  studies.  Erasmus,  as  the  court  theo- 
logian of  his  time,  allowed  himself  to  miss  the  depth  of 
thought  in  many  references.  Often  he  evidently  did  not 
grasp  the  ideas  of  Paul.  I  have  long  sought  for  your 
Psalms.  At  any  rate,  I  once  noticed  that  you  had  trans- 
lated the  Hebrew  into  Latin.  Gladly  do  I  express  the 
wish  that  you  especially  undertake  what  will  be  of  benefit 


246  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

to  the  Church.    May  you  live  well  in  Christ. 

Ambrosius  Moibanus. 

This  letter  would  make  it  appear  that  Moibanus  ac- 
cepted Calvin's  views.  His  approval  of  Calvin's  Insti- 
tutes is  quite  significant.  Is  it  at  all  surprising  that,  when 
Moibanus  wrote  so  favorably  of  Calvin's  writings,  his 
pupil,  Ursinus,  should  afterward  become  a  Calvinist.  The 
truth  seems  to  be  that  the  beginnings  of  Ursinus'  Calvin- 
ism were  in  his  youth.  Though,  as  a  boy  he  did  not 
know  the  differences  between  Lutheranism  and  the  Re- 
formed, but  he  was  caught  in  an  atmosphere  which  clung 
to  him  ever  afterward.  He  learned  this  from  his  pastor 
and  teacher  in  the  school,  Moibanus.  In  other  words, 
from  what  was  virtually  a  Reformed  impression  he  went 
to  the  university  at  Wittenberg. 

Then,  at  the  university,  what  happened.  He  stayed 
there  for  seven  years,  1550- 1557.  He  was  there  in  the 
closest  association  with  Melancthon.  His  letters  reveal 
his  intense  admiration  for  Melancthon  and  his  deep  sym- 
pathy with  him  against  the  attacks  made  on  him  by  the 
high-Lutherans,  as  Westphal  and  Flacius.  He  declares 
he  stayed  at  Wittenberg  only  because  of  Melancthon's  in- 
fluence. He  gives  his  estimate  of  Melancthon  in  a  letter 
to  Crato,  January  10,  1557.  Speaking  of  the  contro- 
versies with  the  high-Lutherans,  he  writes : 

"I  am  of  the  opinion  that  Dr.  Philip  teaches  what 
is  right,  and  has  been  fortunate  enough  to  teach  us  in 
a  holy  and  pure  way,  the  real  substance  of  the  holy 
sacrament.  Dr.  Philip  never  swerves,  but  sticks  to  what 
is  true,  secure,  important  and  necessary,  never  losing 
sight  of  what  is  sublime  and  divine.  Personally  I  do 
not  hesitate  to  confess  that  I  have  been  benefitted  and 
learned  more  from  his  impressive  method  of  teaching 
than  from  the  vague  commentaries  of  his  opponents." 


THE  CONVERSION  OF  URSINUS  247 

Prof.  Lang  calls  attention  to  his  language  early  in 
1557,  where  he  says:  "When  Phillip  has  spoken  I  can  not 
and  dare  not  think  otherwise,"  also  to  his  objection  to 
"Stoic  Necessity,"  which  places  him  in  outspoken  opposi- 
tion to  Calvin's  doctrine  of  predestination.  On  the  other 
hand,  Ursinus  speaks  of  Calvin  several  times  in  his  letters. 
He  speaks  of  Calvin's  defense  against  Westphal  twice  in 
1556,  and  also  (October  3,  1556)  of  Calvin's  visit  to 
Frankford. 

There  is,  however,  one  letter  to  Crato,  that  of  March 
22,  1556,  which  contains  a  sentence  that  may  be  signifi- 
cant. Rott,  who  republished  these  letters  of  Ursinus, 
thinks  it  is  a  sign  that  Ursinus  was  predestinarian.*  Ur- 
sinus writes  thus :  "I  belong  to  that  circle,  to  whom  the 
fact  of  their  election  stands  as  certain."  To  this  infer- 
ence of  Rott,  Prof.  A.  Lang  objects,  saying  that  Ursinus 
does  not  refer  to  his  personal  election  there,  but  uses  the 
word  elect  in  the  general  sense. 

But  we  are  inclined  to  believe  there  is  more  in  it 
than  Lang  grants. 

1.  The  sentence  is  personal,  for  it  uses  the  first  per- 
son. Besides,  in  it  he  expresses  the  personal  hope  of  the 
certainty  of  his  election. 

2.  It  is  strange  that  he  used  the  word  "election"  at 
all,  because  all  that  was  Reformed  was  being  so  bitterly 
attacked  just  at  that  time,  by  Westphal  and  Flacius.  A 
true  Lutheran  would  hardly  have  used  Reformed  verbiage 
^t  all. 

3.  If  it  had  been  the  custom  of  Melancthon  to  gen- 
erally use  the  word  "elect"  in  its  general  sense  as  mean- 
ing Christians,  then  we  could  account  for  Ursinus  using 
it  here.     But  we  have  to  some  extent  examined  Melanc- 

*  Prof.  Lauterberg,  in  Hauck's  "Real  Encyclopaedia,"  also 
thinks  so. 


248  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

thon's  "Loci,"  in  German,  and  also  his  "Consideration 
of  Ordinances,"  and  he  generally  uses  the  words  "saints" 
or  "the  converted"  for  Christians  and  not  the  elect.  Ur- 
sinus'  use  of  the  word  is  therefore  strange.  And  its  refer- 
ence seems  to  us  stronger  because  he  speaks  not  of  the 
elect,  but  of  election.  It  seems  to  us  that  his  earlier  Cal- 
vinistic  tendencies  cropped  out  unintentionally,  or  he  may 
have  been  reading  about  Calvin's  controversy  with  West- 
phal,  for,  as  we  have  seen,  he  speaks  of  Calvin  a  number 
of  times  in  his  letters.  The  least  that  can  be  made  out  of 
this  passage  is  that  he  was  familiar  with  the  doctrine  of 
God's  election.  And  yet,  in  spite  of  this  passage,  which 
seems  to  be  in  conflict  with  his  Melancthonianism  while 
at  the  university,  we  believe  that  Gillet  is  probably  cor- 
rect, when,  in  his  "Crato  of  Crafftheim,"*  he  says  that 
"Ursinus  left  Wittenberg  a  real  follower  of  Melancthon." 

We  now  pass  on  to  the  next  period  of  Ursinus'  life — 
his  travels,  after  leaving  the  university  of  Wittenberg, 
And  here  it  is  a  noticeable  fact,  that  almost  all  of 
his  travels  were  in  Reformed  lands.  Of  all  the  univer- 
sities that  he  went  to,  only  one  was  Lutheran, — namely, 
Tiibingen.  He  was  at  the  Reformed  schools  of  Basle, 
Paris,  Geneva  and  Zurich.  The  only  teacher  he  specially 
mentions  is  Mercier,  of  Paris.  Calvin,  at  Geneva,  see- 
ing his  talents,  presented  him  with  one  of  his  works. 
And  Fries,  at  Zurich,  invited  him,  if  he  ever  needed  a 
refuge,  tc  come  to  Zurich.  Zurich  was  so  attractive  that 
he  visited  it  a  second  time,  when  Peter  Martyr  made  a 
deep  impression  on  him.  From  his  long  sojourn  among 
them,  it  is  evident  the  Reformed  most  interested  him. 

Then  came  the  next  period  of  his  life,  when  he  was 
teacher  at  Breslau,  1558-1560.  During  this  time,  two 
works  of  his  appear,  which  we  may  examine  for  any 

*Vol.  I,  p.  180. 


THE  CONVERSION  OF  URSINUS  249 

signs.  The  one  was  his  "Inaugural  Address,"  the  other 
was  his  "Theses  on  the  Sacraments,"  published  at  Breslau 
as  his  defence  against  the  high-Lutherans. 

His  "Inaugural  Address"  was  on  a  general  subject. 
It  is  an  exhortation  to  the  study  of  Christianity.  It  was 
just  such  an  address  as  a  teacher  of  religion  would  make 
in  order  to  urge  his  pupils  to  study  religion.  However, 
there  is  a  significant  passage  in  it : 

"Neither  are  catechisms  any  other  than  a  summary 
declaration  of  such  sentences  of  Scripture.  Now  this 
little  Consideration  (of  Ordinances,  prepared  by  Melanc- 
thon,  which  he  was  to  use  there),  we  intend  to  propose 
to  you  is  such  and  its  author  has  faithfully  and  with 
great  dexterity  comprehended  the  chief  grounds  of 
Christianity  in  proper  and  plain  language.  And  it  seems 
that  it  would  be  beneficial  that  in  other  churches  there 
should  be  a  like  form  of  catechism  extant.  Prepare  your- 
selves to  speedily  learn  it." 

He  then  sums  up  the  reasons  he  had  previously  given 
to  do  this,  the  commandment  of  God,  your  own  salvation, 
your  duty  to  posterity,  the  example  of  a  purer  Church, 
your  manner  of  life,  your  friend's  desires  and  hopes,  the 
imminent  danger  of  our  times,  and  the  rewards  and  pun- 
ishments we  are  to  look  for  in  God's  hands. 

In  this  passage  there  are  two  references  that  are  in- 
teresting. Is  it  not  significant  that  he  refers  to  cate- 
chisms in  other  lands — that  there  ought  to  be  a  like  form 
of  catechism.  This  seems  to  have  been  an  unconscious 
prophecy  of  his  own  writing  a  catechism  later.  Or,  bet- 
ter, it  shows  the  unconscious  tendency  of  his  mind  to- 
ward catechizing. 

In  this  address,  he  also  refers  to  the  persecuted  breth- 
ren in  England,  referring  to  Lasco  and  his  Reformed  con- 
gregation, whose  sufferings  had  evidently  made  a  deep 
impression  on  him. 


250  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

In  teaching  at  Breslau  he  used  the  work  of  Melanc- 
thon,  which  had  appeared  while  he  was  at  the  university, 
the  "Consideration  of  Ordinances."  This  work  is,  of 
course,  Melancthonian.  In  its  answer  on  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per it  taught : 

"What  is  given  out  and  received  in  the  Lord's  Supper? 
The  true  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  For  the 
Lord  Jesus  has  instituted  this  eating  and  drinking,  so 
that  he  shows  that  he  will  be  truly  and  essentially  with 
us  and  in  us  and  will  live  in  the  converted  to  communi- 
cate to  them  his  benefits  and  be  powerful  in  them." 

But  Ursinus'  teaching  of  it  did  not  at  all  please  the 
high-Lutherans,  for  they  attacked  him  for  being  a  Calvin- 
ist.  This  charge  would  not  necessarily  prove  that  he  was 
a  Calvinist,  for  the  high-Lutherans  charged  every  one  in 
the  Lutheran  Church  who  did  not  agree  with  them  with 
being  a  Calvinist.  It  at  least  meant  that  he  was  a  Me- 
lancthonian. To  show  to  them  his  position  he  published 
his  first  work,  "Theses  on  the  Doctrine  of  the  Sacra- 
ments." This  work  called  forth  the  strongest  praise  of 
Melancthon,  who  wrote  to  Ferinarius,  and  said :  "I  have 
well  known  his  learning  up  to  this  time,  but  I  have  never 
seen  anything  so  brilliant  as  in  this  work."  It  is,  how- 
ever, to  be  noticed  that  what  Melancthon  praises  seems 
to  be  his  splendid  arrangement  and  fundamental  treat- 
ment. But,  in  spite  of  Melancthon's  praise  and  a  let- 
ter of  Melancthon  admonishing  peace,  the  high-Lutherans 
so  attacked  him  that  he  had  to  resign.  His  treatise 
had  only  laid  bare  his  position  and  the  high-Lutherans 
were  only  too  glad  to  utilize  any  weakness  to  Lutheran- 
ism  in  it  against  him.  Indeed,  they  had  influence  enough 
to  have  the  book  forbidden  in  Breslau,  and  there  was 
nothing  left  but  for  him  to  resign  from  his  school  and 
leave  Breslau. 


THE  CONVERSION  OF  URSINUS  251 

The  question  therefore  arises :  Is  there  anything  in 
this  publication  to  justify  the  charge  of  the  high-Lu- 
therans that  he  was  Reformed  and  not  Lutheran ; — were 
there  any  signs  of  Calvinism  in  the  work.  The  work 
consists  of  123  theses,  of  which  51  are  on  the  sacraments 
in  general,  12  on  baptism,  and  60  on  the  Lord's  Supper. 
They  are  remarkable  in  their  clearness,  logicalness,  thor- 
oughness and  wide  mastery  of  the  whole  subject.  This 
is  especially  true  when  one  remembers  that  Ursinus  was 
only  twenty-five  years  of  age  at  their  publication.  In 
them  he  talks  like  an  old  professor  after  years  of  study. 
No  wonder  Melancthon  went  into  ecstasies  over  them, 
especially  at  Ursinus'  learning  and  ability  in  them.  A 
great  thinker  had  arisen.  Ursinus  also  reveals  his  great 
power  at  analysis  that  afterwards  made  him  a  master 
dialectician. 

On  the  Lord's  Supper,  they  in  the  main  follow  Me- 
lancthon's  views.  Their  method  of  statement  is  Melanc- 
thonian.  The  influence  of  Melancthon's  work  "The  Con- 
sideration of  Ordinances,"  which  he  was  using  as  a  text- 
book at  Breslau  is  evident  in  them.  But  while  they  were 
in  the  main  Melancthonian,  there  were  some  outcroppings 
of  the  Calvinism  he  had  imbibed.  Thus  in  theses  16  and 
18  on  the  sacraments,  he  speaks  of  election.  This  was 
not  wise  at  that  time  in  view  of  the  strained  relations 
to  the  high-Lutherans  at  Breslau.  Their  use,  however, 
shows  that  he  was  beginning  to  think  in  terms  of  the 
Reformed  categories.  Then  again,  in  theses  25,  on  the 
Lord's  Supper,  he  has  a  reference  to  Christ's  body  in 
heaven  at  the  Lord's  Supper.  Now  these  were  Calvin- 
istic  outcroppings.  His  association  with  the  Swiss  had 
evidently  affected  him.  And  his  opponents  at  Breslau 
were  quick  to  seize  these  signs  and  to  use  them  against 
him.      So  SiidhofT  is  right  in  His  estimate  that  in  them 


252  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

Ursinus  went  beyond  Melancthon  in  the  direction  of  Cal- 
vin. And  yet  Ursinus  does  not  define  things  according 
to  Calvin's  categories  or  use  the  Calvinistic  terminology, 
though  it  is  evident  he  is  drifting  thither.  Had  Melanc- 
thon only  spoken  even  as  clearly  as  Ursinus  did  here, 
on  the  body  of  Christ  as  in  heaven  at  the  Lord's  Supper, 
there  might  have  been  a  slight  basis  of  truth  for  the 
Melancthon-Calvinistic  theology.* 

He  left  Breslau  with  an  honorable  dismissal,  and  on 
the  condition  that  he  would  return  if  desired.  His  words 
at  his  departure  to  his  uncle  Roth,  when  asked,  where 
he  would  go,  were 

"Not  unwillingly  do  I  leave  my  fatherland,  since  it 
does  not  permit  the  confession  of  the  truth,  which  I  can 
not  with  good  conscience  give  up.  If  my  teacher  Melanc- 
thon still  lived,  I  would  go  nowhere  else  but  to  him. 
But  as  he  is  dead  (Melancthon  had  died  shortly  before), 
I  will  go  to  Zurich  where  there  are  pious,  great  and 
learned  men.     As  for  the  rest,  God  will  care." 

Goebel  makes  a  beautiful  remark  on  this :  "This  shows 
that  among  the  living,  none  were  nearer  to  him  than  at 
Zurich  and  among  the  dead  than  Melancthon." 

Then  comes  the  final  scene  in  this  topic,  when  he 
avows  himself  Reformed.  In  a  letter  written  from  Zurich 
to  Crato,  October  6,  1560,  he  declares  his  full  agreement 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  Swiss  on  the  sacraments,  provi- 
dence, election  freewill,  the  human  statutes  of  the 
Church  and  the  rigidity  of  Christian  Church  discipline. 
Now  the  fact  that  he  wrote  this  confession  of  being  Re- 
formed only  three  days  after  he  arrived  at  Zurich,  is  signi- 
ficant. He  could  not  have  changed  from  Lutheranism, 
even  low-Lutheranism,  to  Calvinism,  especially  on  elec- 
tion, in  three  days.     He  could  not  have  changed  as  sud- 

*  See  Chapter  II,  page  173. 


THE  CONVERSION  OF  URSINUS 


253 


denly  as  that.  The  process  must  have  been  going  on  in 
his  mind  before  he  came  to  Zurich.  He  must  have  been 
Reformed  in  mind  and  spirit  before  he  came  to  Zurich. 

Now  when  did  this  change  take  place.  We  have  given 
all  the  light  that  can  be  found.  We  have  tried  carefully  to 
weigh  it  and  combine  it.  We  may  have  erred  in  our  esti- 
mate, for  the  whole  subject  is  more  difficult.  Indeed, 
sometimes  subjects  become  more  difficult  the  more  light 
you  get  on  them,  as  instead  of  clearing  the  subject  they 
make  it  more  difficult.  We  believe,  however,  that  the 
summary  of  the  whole  subject  may  be  this, — that  Ursinus 
when  he  was  a  boy  under  Moibanus'  instruction  at  Bres- 
lau,  was  under  what  were  virtually  Reformed  influences. 
He,  therefore,  went  to  Wittenberg  with  no  strong  and 
specific  Lutheran  basis  of  thought.  At  the  university, 
Melancthon's  strong  influence  led  him  up  to  low-Luth- 
eranism.  Yet  even  there  his  previous  Reformed  tenden- 
cies revealed  themselves  occasionally.  When  he  left  the 
university  for  travel,  it  was  mainly  in  Reformed  lands  and 
though  he  came  back  to  Germany  a  Melancthonian,  or  at 
least  believed  himself  to  be,  yet  the  influence  of  the  Re- 
formed on  him  in  his  travels,  especially  of  Peter  Martyr, 
who  later  became  to  him  what  Melancthon  had  been  to 
him  before,  his  spiritual  and  theological  guide,  remained 
with  him.  When  Melancthon  died  that  broke  the  last  tie 
to  Lutheranism.  He  followed  his  early  inclination, 
which  had  been  deepened  by  his  travels  and  went  over 
entirely  to  the  Reformed  faith.  In  his  letter  back  to 
Breslau,  he  declared  that  if  Breslau  wanted  him  back 
(for  there  was  a  coterie  of  his  friends,  among  them 
Crato,  who  hoped  to  win  him  back)  that  it  would  be  on 
condition  that  he  would  be  allowed  to  teach  the  doctrine 
taught  at  Zurich. 


254  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

So  Ursinus  became  Reformed.  Lutheranism  lost  its 
brightest  theologian  at  a  time  when  it  most  needed  him. 
He  would  have  been  a  great  tower  of  strength  had  he 
remained  at  Wittenberg,  as  was  desired.  And  the  Re- 
formed Church  gained  not  merely  a  great  theologian,  but 
also  the  one  who  wrote  her  greatest  book,  the  Heidelberg 
catechism. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

CRATO    OF    CRAFFTHEIM,    URSINUS'    PATRON 

The  life  of  the  patron  of  Ursinus,  Dr.  John  Krafft, 
or  as  his  name  has  come  down  to  us,  Crato  of  CrafTt- 
heim,  gives  us  a  delightful  insight  into  the  life  of  one 
of  the  authors  of  the  Heidelberg  catechism.  The  cor- 
respondence between  Crato  and  Ursinus  is  a  new  and 
powerful  sidelight  into  Ursinus'  life. 

John  Krafft  was  bom  November  20,  15 19,  at  Breslau. 
Like  his  later  protege,  Ursinus,  he  attended  the  school 
of  the  St.  Elizabeth's  Church  there.  He  was  a  poor  boy 
and  for  thirteen  years  received  stipends  for  his  support, 
just  as  Ursinus  later  received  from  him.  Intending  to 
study  for  the  ministry,  he  went  at  the  age  of  fifteen,  in 
1534,  to  the  university  of  Wittenberg.  There  Luther 
took  him  into  his  own  house  and  he  lived  for  six  years 
in  close  fellowship  with  the  great  reformer.  But  though 
so  close  to  Luther,  he  was  more  attracted  by  Melancthon, 
who  had  the  charge  of  his  studies.  He  excelled  in  the 
classics,  especially  in  Cicero,  so  that  Melancthon  later 
gave  his  literary  style  a  special  name,  "the  Cratonian 
diction,"  because  it  revealed  such  clearness  and  beauty. 
Luther  was  also  greatly  pleased  with  his  ability  and 
wanted  him  for  the  church,  but  seeing  he  was  too  weak 
for  preaching  and  that  he  had  a  decided  inclination  to 
medicine,  he  advised  him  to  give  up  theology  for  medi- 
cine, as  Protestant  physicians  of  the  first  rank  were  at 
that  time  greatly  needed.  He  soon  gained  the  master's 
degree  at  the  university  and  then  lectured  on  Aristotle 

255 


256  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

and  Plato  with  great  success. 

He  then  became  tutor  to  a  noble  and  accompanied 
him  to  Leipsic,  at  whose  university  there  was  more  room 
for  young  lecturers  like  himself.  But  he  found  that 
there,  as  at  Wittenberg,  there  were  no  famous  professors 
of  medicine.  He,  however,  found  a  patron  in  Prof. 
Joachim  Camerarius,  one  of  the  most  celebrated  philolo- 
gists and  theologians  of  his  day.  So  he  went  to  Italy, 
the  Mecca  at  that  time,  of  the  medical  profession. 
Through  the  influence  of  Melancthon  and  Camerarius, 
the  Duke  of  Prussia  gave  him  money  enough  for  this 
trip,  in  order  that  he  might  prepare  himself  to  become 
a  private  physician  to  the  nobility.  At  the  university  of 
Padua  he  found  in  Professor  Montanus  a  great  friend 
and  guide,  such  as  Luther  had  been  to  him  in  faith, 
and  Melancthon  in  philosophy  and  theology.  Montanus 
was  one  of  the  greatest  physicians  of  his  day,  combining 
the  new  discoveries  of  medicine  with  the  older  methods. 

After  gaining  his  medical  degree  there,  he  practiced 
for  a  short  time  at  Verona  and  then  returned  to  Breslau, 
in  1550,  by  way  of  Augsburg.  He  expected  to  make 
Breslau  his  home  and  so  married  there.  He  soon  re- 
vealed his  advanced  methods  of  medical  practice.  For 
he  was  the  first  German  physician  who  held  that  the 
plague  was  a  contagious  disease.  The  plague  broke  out 
in  Breslau,  in  1553,  the  sixth  time  in  that  century.  He 
was  the  first  to  draw  up  rules  about  it  and  introduced 
police  regulations  to  isolate  and  suppress  it.  He  dis- 
closed to  physicians  the  difference  between  a  non-contag- 
ious and  miasmatic  disease.  As  a  result,  Breslau  had  no 
visit  of  the  plague  for  thirty-four  years.  His  success 
gave  him  great  fame  and  the  city,  in  1554,  recognized 
his  services  by  giving  him  an  annuity  of  one  hundred 
dollars.     He  also,  as  a  progressive  physician,  attempted 


CRATO  OF  CRAFFTHEIM  257 

to  introduce  in  Breslau,  what  Paris  had,  namely,  regular 
druggists.  In  1554  he  added  to  his  fame  by  publishing 
two  important  works  on  medicine. 

As  a  result  his  fame  became  so  great  that  he  was 
called  to  be  private  physician  to  the  Emperor  of  Ger- 
many, Ferdinand  I.  For,  though  the  Emperors  of  Ger- 
many were  Catholics,  yet  they  had  Protestant  physicians. 
Crato  had  the  honor  of  being  private  physician  to  no 
less  than  three  of  the  Emperors  in  succession,  Ferdinand 
I,  Maximilian  II  and  Rudolph  II.  Only  one  other  Prot- 
estant had  a  similar  honor,  and  he  a  Reformed,  Ambroise 
Pare,  who  was  private  physician  to  four  of  the  French 
kings,  even  though  they  were  Catholics.  The  Protestant 
kings  did  not  dare  to  trust  the  Catholic  physicians  thus, 
for  the  Catholic  physicians,  at  the  instigation  of  the 
Jesuits,  sometimes  secretly  poisoned  a  number  of  Protes- 
tant princes  as  Dukes  Bernard  of  Weimar,  and  Henry  of 
Rohan.  Crato  became  court  physician  in  1560  and  re- 
mained with  the  King  till  he  died,  in  1564.  In  1563  he 
left  Breslau  and  for  nearly  twenty  years  spent  his  time 
with  the  court.  He  exerted  considerable  influence  with 
Ferdinand,  in  making  him  milder  against  the  Protestants, 
in  the  hope  of  winning  them  back  to  Romanism. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  it  was  during  this  early 
period  of  Crato's  life  that  he  began  the  financial  support 
of  Ursinus  at  the  university  of  Wittenberg.  It  is  some- 
what remarkable  that  he  should  begin  this  so  soon,  for 
he  commenced  only  a  year  after  he  began  practicing 
medicine  at  Breslau.  But  then,  Crato  supported  other 
students,  especially  those  in  medicine.  It  is  remarkable 
that  he  helped  Ursinus,  as  when  he  first  began,  he  had 
never  yet  seen  him.  He  perhaps  helped  Ursinus  be- 
cause he  felt  that  he  had  started  out  to  enter  the  ministry 
and  then  been  turned  aside  from  it :  he  therefore  wanted 

17 


258  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

to  put  some  one  in  the  ministry  to  take  his  place,  and 
he  therefore  aided  Ursinus.  He  never  invested  money 
more  profitably  for  himself  or  for  the  Church  than  what 
he  put  into  Ursinus.  For  Ursinus  became  one  of  the 
greatest  theologians  of  that  day.  Crato  is  a  noble  ex- 
ample to  many  of  our  people  today,  who  have  financial 
means,  and  yet  for  sufficient  reasons,  are  prevented  from 
entering  in  the  ministry.  The  example  of  Crato  in  doing 
this  ought  to  give  to  them  a  suggestion  and  an  inspira- 
tion to  put  some  one  into  the  ministry  in  their  place. 

And  Ursinus,  whom  he  aided,  became  a  great  blessing, 
not  only  to  the  world,  but  also  to  Crato  himself.  This 
is  shown  by  their  correspondence,  which  was  continued 
down  to  Ursinus'  death.  When  later  Crato  became  royal 
physician,  he  never  was  too  busy  to  read  a  letter  from 
Ursinus  or  to  write  one  to  him.  It  is  interesting  to 
notice  that  both  Crato  and  Ursinus  enter  upon  their  life 
work  about  the  same  time.  Crato  became  royal  physician 
in  1560,  and  Ursinus  professor  at  Heidelberg  in  1561. 
It  is  also  very  interesting  to  see  how  the  lives  of  Crato 
and  Ursinus  run  parallel  and  yet  are  interwoven.  Be- 
fore Crato  became  royal  physician,  he  had  begun  Ursinus' 
support  at  Wittenberg.  But  their  correspondence  con- 
tinued while  Ursinus  was  in  the  university.  Ursinus  is 
continually  expressing  his  great  thankfulness  to  Crato 
for  his  aid.  Of  these  six  years  of  his  university  life, 
thirty-nine  letters  that  Ursinus  wrote  to  Crato  have  come 
down  to  us.  Crato  soon  found  that  he  had  discovered  a 
great  helper  in  Ursinus.  Crato  was  a  man  of  books, 
and  yet  he  was  far  away  from  the  book  markets  when 
he  was  at  Breslau.  So  Ursinus,  who  was  near  the  book 
market  at  Leipsic,  would  keep  him  informed  about  the 
books,  especially  new  books,  and  would  buy  them  for 
Crato  whenever  he  wanted  them.     A  very  beautiful  illus- 


CRATO  OF  CRAFFTHETM  259 

tration  of  Crato's  kindness  is  shown  in  an  incident  that 
occurred  during  Ursinus'  university  hfe.  In  a  letter 
written  January,  1554,  Ursinus  gives  expression  to  a 
great  desire  to  have  the  works  of  Cicero,  which  he  was 
too  poor  to  buy.  The  suggestion  was  enough.  Crato 
bought  them  and  two  months  later  Ursinus,  in  a  letter, 
expresses  his  great  thankfulness  for  the  gift. 

But  perhaps  the  most  remarkable  result  of  this  friend- 
ship between  them  was  the  way  in  which  Ursinus  in- 
fluenced Crato's  religious  belief.  For  it  was  the  influ- 
ence of  Ursinus  that  converted  Crato  to  the  Reformed 
faith.  Crato,  like  Ursinus  in  the  university,  was  a  Me- 
lancthonian  in  doctrine.  And  when  Ursinus  got  into 
trouble  at  Breslau  because  of  his  Melancthonianism, 
Crato  stood  by  him,  for  he  seemed  to  have  no  sympathy 
with  the  narrow  high-Lutheranism.  Fortunate  was  it 
that  Ursinus  had  such  a  rich  friend  at  that  time.  For 
when  he  resigned  there  as  teacher,  in  1560,  and  went 
away,  not  knowing  whither  he  went,  it  was  Crato  who 
helped  him  financially.  He  had  not  gotten  many  stations 
away  from  Breslau,  before  he  found  a  letter  from  Crato 
containing  money.  And  when  Ursinus  shortly  after  pub- 
licly declares  that  he  has  become  Reformed,  Crato  fol- 
lowed suit  and  became  Reformed.  Indeed,  Crato's  sym- 
pathy with  Ursinus  and  the  Melancthonians  at  Breslau 
made  his  position  there  uncomfortable.  For  the  hatred 
of  the  high-Lutherans  led  him  to  be  deprived  of  his  posi- 
tion as  doctor  of  the  poor.  And  he  was  therefore  very 
glad  to  get  away  from  Breslau  when  he  was  called  to 
be  private  physician  to  the  King. 

Crato  became  a  strong  Reformed  in  his  beliefs. 
He  later  translated  Calvin's  catechism  into  Latin  and 
Greek.  And  during  the  latter  part  of  his  life  he  used 
it  as  a  daily  handbook.     He  underscored  passages  in  it 


26o  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

which  met  his  especial  approval.  Ah,  Crato  had  given 
much  to  Ursinus,  but  he  got  back  more  than  he  gave. 
He  got  back  what  was  worth  more  than  his  money.  He 
realized  this,  for  when  Ursinus  left  Breslau,  as  he  bade 
him  farewell  with  the  assurance  of  help,  he  said  that 
Ursinus  had  ofifered  him  "eternal  treasures."  For 
Crato  had  received  his  religious  and  theological  tenden- 
cies from  Ursinus  and  kept  them  to  his  end.  Crato, 
together  with  Ursinus'  friends  at  Breslau,  tried  to  get 
Ursinus  back  there ;  but  Ursinus  wrote  them  that  if  he 
came  back,  it  must  be  as  Reformed.  He  finally  begged 
them  to  give  up  their  efforts  and  went  to  Heidelberg. 
When  Ursinus  lived  in  Heidelberg,  he  still  keeps  up 
his  correspondence  with  his  patron.  Very  beautiful  are 
their  efforts  to  comfort  and  strengthen  each  other  as 
trials  and  sicknesses  come  to  each  of  them.  Ursinus 
at  Heidelberg,  being  near  the  great  book  market  at 
Frankford,  keeps  Crato  posted  about  books  and  often, 
at  his  request,  buys  them  for  him. 

After  the  death  of  Emperor  Ferdinand,  Crato  went 
back  to  Breslau  to  live.  But  the  next  Emperor,  Maxi- 
milian, was  not  a  well  man,  as  he  had  suffered  for  many 
years  from  heart  trouble.  So  Crato  was  called  back  as 
private  physician,  in  1565,  though  he  usually  spent  a 
month  each  year  at  Breslau.  Maximilian  had  two 
other  private  physicians,  all  Protestants,  but  Crato  was 
his  favorite  physician  and  was  with  him  for  about  twelve 
years.  Maximilian  was  the  most  liberal  of  the  emperors 
toward  the  reformation.  He  greatly  honored  Crato  and 
often  made  him  his  counselor  in  political  matters,  even 
though  Crato  was  a  Protestant.  The  comparative  mild- 
ness of  Maximilian,  as  compared  with  his  predecessor 
and  successor,  was  quite  marked.  His  reign  was  the 
golden  age   of  the   reformation,   especially  in    Austria. 


CRATO  OF  CRAFFTHEIM  261 

Then  all  the  prominent  nobles,  except  Bavaria,  were 
Evangelical.  Had  Protestantism  used  this  opportunity, 
and  not  torn  itself  asunder  by  strife  between  high-  and 
low-Lutherans  and  Calvinists,  Austria  today  would  prob- 
ably be  prevailing  Protestant,  and  there  would  have  been 
no  awful  Thirty  Years'  War  in  the  next  century. 

It  was  during  this  period  that  Crato  became  the  pro- 
tector and  pillar  of  the  Protestants  in  Austria.  For  he 
became  the  power  behind  the  throne.  If  any  one  wanted 
influence  at  court  they  sought  it  through  him.  He  espe- 
cially used  his  influence  to  protect  the  Bohemian  Brethren, 
with  whom  he  came  into  contact  while  with  the  court  at 
Prague.  In  1567  one  of  their  leaders  employed  him  as 
physician  at  Vienna,  and  after  that  Crato  became  their 
defender  and  mediator  at  court.  A  beautiful  illustration 
is  told  of  him.  One  day,  while  the  Emperor  was  taking 
a  walk  alone  with  Crato,  their  conversation  turned  on 
the  divisions  with  which  Christendom  was  torn.  The 
Emperor  asked  his  favorite,  which  of  the  varied  sects 
seemed  to  him  to  approach  nearest  to  apostolic  sym- 
pHcity.  "I  do  not  know  any,  of  whom  it  can  be  more 
truly  said,"  replied  Crato,  "than  of  the  Bohemian  Breth- 
ren, who  are  also  called  Picards."  The  Emperor  replied, 
"I  believe  that  myself."  This  remark  led  Crato  to  ad- 
vise the  Brethren  to  dedicate  their  new  hymnbook  to  the 
Emperor.  They  followed  his  advice  and  the  dedication 
is  still  extant,  in  which  they  express  the  hope  that  the 
Emperor  would,  like  David,  Josiah,  Constantine  and 
Theodosius,  be  a  nursing-father  to  the  Church.  When 
the  Lutherans,  Reformed  and  Brethren  united  at  Send- 
omir,  he  tried  to  effect  their  union  with  the  churches  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  so  that  they  might  gain  greater 
privileges. 

Maximilian  greatly  honored  him  and,  about  1567,  ele- 


262  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

vated  him  to  the  rank  of  nobility ;  so  that  plain  Dr.  John 
Krafft  now  became  Dr.  Crato  of  Crafftheim,  the  name 
by  which  he  is  usually  known  in  history.  In  1574,  when 
the  Melancthonians  were  driven  out  of  Wittenberg,  it 
was  expected  that  that  would  reduce  his  influence  at 
court  and  perhaps  cause  him  the  loss  of  his  position. 
But  instead,  the  next  year  Maximilian  granted  him  a 
new  honor  by  giving  to  him,  and  also  to  his  son,  the 
high  title  of  Pfalzgraf.  He  also  made  him  doctor  of 
law,  philosophy  and  medicine,  with  all  the  academic 
rights  belonging  to  those  degrees.  Today  a  man  may 
be  a  doctor  of  law  or  philosophy  or  medicine,  but  Crato 
had  all  of  them  together.  During  Maximilian's  life,  his 
fame  spread  to  all  parts  of  Europe. 

But  Crato  tired  of  court  life  in  spite  of  its  many  ad- 
vantages. He  had  to  be  away  a  great  deal  from  Breslau, 
as  the  Emperor  was  not  well  and  traveled  around  a 
great  deal.  He  longed  for  the  enjoyment  of  home.  Fre- 
quent spells  of  ill  health  added  to  his  ill  humor.  Dis- 
satisfaction at  the  court  also  began  to  show  itself.  Ow- 
ing to  the  increasing  illness  of  the  Emperor,  a  strong 
party  arose  against  him  in  the  court,  who  questioned 
his  medical  treatment  of  the  Emperor.  On  one  occasion, 
it  went  so  far  as  to  call  in  a  quack,  a  woman  doctor. 
Against  this  Crato  protested  and  when  he  was  called 
back  it  was  too  late.  The  Emperor  died  and  Crato  went 
back  to  Breslau,  expecting  to  remain  there.  For  one  of 
the  other  private  physicians  of  the  late  King  attacked 
his  medical  treatment  of  Maximilian  in  a  pamphlet,  and 
thus  tried  to  injure  his  reputation. 

It  is  strange  how  the  periods  of  the  life  of  Crato  and 
Ursinus  synchronize.  We  have  seen  how  about  the  time 
Crato  became  royal  physician,  Ursinus  became  professor 
at  Heidelberg.     And  now  again,  about  the  time  that  Crato 


CRATO  OF  CRAFFTHEIM  263 

left  the  court  and  went  back  to  Breslaii,  in  1576,  Ur- 
sinus  was  driven  out  of  Heidelberg  after  the  death  of 
Elector  Frederick  III,  when  his  son  and  successor,  Lewis, 
reintroduced  Lutheranism  there.  When  that  catastro- 
phe occurred,  Ursinus  was  thrown  out  in  the  world  with- 
out any  resources.  He  had  nothing  and  knew  not  where 
to  go.  Ursinus,  in  a  letter  of  November  24,  1576,  speak- 
ing of  the  change  caused  by  Elector  Frederick's  death, 
thus  writes  to  Crato:  "As  for  me,  I  have  no  objection 
to  be  sent  away  from  this  treadmill.  I  am  only  regret- 
ting that  it  is  winter  and  I  am  not  in  possession  of  any 
money  for  traveling,  neither  can  I  say  that  I  am  prepared, 
should  I  be  ordered  to  leave.  This  and  all  other  matters 
do  I  commit  to  God."  We  here  see  revealed  the  ex- 
tremity of  Ursinus  and  yet  his  beautiful  trust  in  God. 

Then  it  was,  in  his  time  of  greatest  need,  that  his  old 
friend  Crato  again  came  to  his  assistance.  Crato  loaned 
him  three  hundred  dollars  which  tided  him  over  until  he 
became  professor  at  the  new  university  of  Neustadt. 

Returning  to  Crato,  although  he  had  gone  back  to 
Breslau  after  the  death  of  Emperor  Maximilian,  expect- 
ing to  spend  the  rest  of  his  life  there,  he  was  not  per- 
mitted to  do  so.  For  the  next  Emperor,  Rudolph  II, 
called  him  back  to  the  court  as  private  physician. 
Though  this  emperor  dismissed  many  Protestants  in  his 
court,  among  them  the  two  other  Protestant  physicians, 
yet  he  called  Crato  to  his  side.  Crato  hesitated  at  first, 
for  he  knew  that  the  new  emperor  was  an  intense  Cath- 
olic, much  less  liberal  than  Maximilian.  He  also  knew 
that  a  party  at  the  court  had  been  formed  against  him. 
But  finally,  at  the  urgent  solicitation  of  friends,  he  ac- 
cepted. 

But  he  soon  found  that  he  had  a  very  difficult  posi- 
tion to  fill.     The  papal  party  at  court  made  him  very 


264  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

uncomfortable.  Their  cause  was  aided  by  the  continued 
illness  of  the  Emperor,  which  cast  discredit  at  Crato's 
medical  treatment.  The  anxiety  and  continued  care  of 
his  master  finally  broke  down  his  health,  so  that  he  re- 
signed his  position,  in  1581.  He  retired  to  a  country- 
seat,  at  Ruckersdorf,  a  mile  from  Breslau,  on  the  road 
to  Prague.  There  he  built  a  church  and  had  a  Reformed 
minister,  who  was  the  first  in  Lutheran  Silesia.  He  in- 
troduced the  Reformed  custom  of  preaching  on  the  cate- 
chism on  Sunday  afternoons,  in  which,  Olevianus'  hand- 
book, "The  Strong  Foundation,"  was  used.  The  Lu- 
theran minister,  however,  opposed  this  effort  to  intro- 
duce the  Reformed  faith. 

But  Crato  found  that  his  country-seat  was  too  far 
out  of  the  world  for  one  with  such  a  large  correspon- 
dence. So,  in  1583,  he  went  back  to  Breslau  to  live. 
It  was  during  his  stay  in  his  country-seat  that  one  of 
Ursinus'  last  letters  was  written  to  him.  It  is  a  letter 
wonderfully  revealing  Ursinus'  hope  and  his  consola- 
tion to  Crato.     He  writes  : 

"May  it  please  the  Lord  still  to  spare  you  in  the 
miseries  of  this  life.  You  know  that  diseases  are  crosses 
that  have  to  be  borne  as  long  as  they  last,  with  patience, 
especially  at  your  age,  which  is  the  time  for  disease. 
Undoubtedly  you  have  overcome  the  sickness  of  spirit, 
otherwise  you  will  overcome  it  with  the  medicine  of  that 
Heavenly  Doctor,  through  whose  exhaustion  we  get 
strength,  through  whose  body,  blood  and  spirit  we  have 
life,  so  that  we  shall  not  taste  death  in  eternity,  but  be 
alive  when  we  are  dead,  inasmuch  as  we,  through  faith, 
have  passed  from  death  to  life  and  are  not  to  be  judged. 
I  am,  therefore,  in  no  doubt  whatever  in  regard  to 
the  power  of  your  spirit,  because,  to  him  that  hath  shall 
be  given.  He  that  hath  begun  the  good  work  within  us 
will  also  finish  it.  The  consciences  of  unbelievers  are 
also  convinced  by  the  clearness  of  Scripture.     The  Word 


CRATO  OF  CRAFFTHEIM  265 

of  God  is  sharper  than  any  two-edged  sword.  Those 
who  pray  to  God  become  enhghtened  and  fortified,  will 
be  released  from  all  their  doubts,  for  it  is  written, 
'Blessed  are  they  that  hunger  and  thirst  after  righteous- 
ness for  they  shall  be  filled.'  The  greater  pre-suppo- 
sition  of  our  pious  comfort  is  this  chief  truth  of  Holy 
Scripture.  'He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath  life.' 
The  minor  one  is  but  this  desire  for  faith,  'I  believe 
Lord,  help  my  unbelief." 

And  from  these  truths  he  arrives  at  the  conclusion : 
"Therefore,  I  have  life  eternal  and  from  everlasting  I 
have  been  elected  to  this  life  and  no  one  can  separate 
me  from  the  love  of  God,  which  is  in  Christ,  neither 
can  any  snatch  me  away  from  the  hands  of  my  Father 
and  Shepherd.' 

"When  you  firmly  believe  and  yet  are  troubled  with 
doubts,  it  proves  that  in  reality  you  are  a  believer,  who 
has  received  the  gift  of  the  Spirit,  which  cries,  'Abba 
Father'  and  who  represents  you  before  the  throne  with 
unspeakable  signs.  You,  yourself,  have  attained  to  such 
an  age  as  few  go  beyond.  I  fail  to  see  what  can  give 
you  lasting  joy  in  this  world.  Happy  are  they  who 
die  in  the  Lord.  Flesh  and  nature  within  us  may  sigh 
and  shudder,  yet  the  heart  will  sing,  'Lord  now  lettest 
Thou  Thy  servant  depart  in  peace  for  mine  eyes  have 
seen  Thy  salvation.'  To  you  theology  is  not  mere  dia- 
lectics, but  it  is  a  means.  I  have  also  come  to  know 
this  more  by  practice  than  by  theory.  Therefore,  I  pray, 
Almighty  God,  that  it  may  please  him  to  relieve  your 
bodily  sufferings,  as  well  as  those  of  your  mind,  that 
you  will  be  able  to  do  only  what  he  will  have  you 
do,  and  that  your  confidence  shall  be,  that  what  he  has 
ordained  for  you,  is  best." 

Thus  does  Ursinus  beautifully  comfort  Crato  in  his 
old  age  and  failing  health.  It  was  almost  the  last  letter 
of  Ursinus.  What  a  beautiful  insight  the  letter  gives  of 
Ursinus'  piety  and  hope. 

Crato  spent  the  remainder  of  his  days  in  Breslau. 
But  he  found  that  he  had  been  away  for  so  many  years 


266  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

at  the  Emperor's  court,  that  he  was  now  a  comparative 
stranger.  Yet,  in  a  small  circle,  especially  of  learned 
men,  he  met  a  warm  reception.  During  his  day,  the 
Reformed,  though  they  had  no  Church  at  Breslau,  were 
accustomed  to  hold  conventicles  or  meetings  for  prayer 
and  Bible  study  at  the  house  of  Dudith.  In  these,  Crato 
joined  whenever  his  health  permitted.  He  died  in  1585 
or  1586,  of  catarrh.  He  died  in  the  arms  of  his  friend, 
Dr.  John  Herman.  His  last  words  were:  "I  live  and 
thou  shalt  live."  During  his  last  years,  owing  to  in- 
creasing infirmities,  the  religious  and  the  spiritual  be- 
came more  and  more  prominent.  It  was  at  this  time 
that  he  wrote  a  collection  of  Latin  religious  poems  which 
were  published  after  his  death  by  a  friend.  They  were 
like  a  religious  diary,  in  which,  he  gave  expression  to 
his  religious  views  and  aspirations.  They  were  full  of 
thoughts  about  God,  redemption  and  immortality,  now 
in  a  complaining,  now  in  a  comforting  tone,  now  an 
inquiry  and  now  in  a  reflective  mood. 

Crato  was  one  of  the  most  prominent  men  of  his  age. 
He  was  prominent  as  a  physician.  His  biographer,  in 
Hauck's  "Real-Encyclopsedia,"  gives  him  the  honor  of 
being  the  reformer  of  the  materia  medica  of  the  Middle 
Ages.  If  his  protege,  Ursinus,  was  a  reformer  of  the 
Church,  he  was  a  reformer  in  medicine,  preparing  it  for 
a  new  materia  medica.  And  if  Pare,  the  great  Huguenot 
physician,  his  great  Reformed  contemporary,  put  medi- 
cine under  everlasting  obligation  by  the  discovery  of  the 
ligature  of  the  arteries,  Crato  made  medical  science  his 
debtor  in  the  new  materia  medica.  He  ranked  with  the 
leading  physicians  of  his  day,  with  Vesalius,  in  Spain, 
and  Gessner,  in  Zurich.  He  was  also  prominent  in  poli- 
tics, and,  what  is  most  significant,  a  Protestant  in  the 
midst  of  a  Catholic  court.     It  is  here  that  we  begin  to 


CRATO  OF  CRAFFTHEIM  267 

realize  the  greatness  of  the  influence  of  Ursinus. 
Ursinus,  by  his  friendship  and  advice  of  Crato,  through 
his  letters,  became  a  factor  in  the  court  of  the  emporer. 
We  have  no  direct  evidence  of  any  particular  influence. 
But  Ursinus  is  continually  acquainting  Crato  with  the 
political  news  of  Europe  in  his  letters.  No  one  can 
measure  how  far  this  silent  influence  of  Ursinus  may 
have  influenced  Crato  politically.  The  influence  of  Ur- 
sinus' correspondence  was  not  only  great  all  over  Europe, 
but  even  to  the  Emperor's  court,  as  he  wrote  to  Crato. 
And  the  correspondence  of  these  two  men  is  a  beautiful 
evidence  of  Christian  friendship  and  mutual  helpfulness. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  UNIVERSITY  DAYS  OE  URSINUS* 

Ursinus  College  is  named  after  Ursinus.  Ursinus 
College,  we  know,  with  its  reputation  for  beautiful  situa- 
tion, for  careful  and  thorough  education,  and  for  success 
in  athletics.  But  who  was  the  man  after  whom  it  was 
named?  I  fear  that  some  of  these  twentieth-century 
scholars,  who  think  that  oiir  age  knows  everything,  and 
who  look  upon  all  that  has  gone  before  them  at  antede- 
luvian,  may  think  that  he  was  some  fossilized  old  theo- 
logian or  some  behind-the-times  professor.  Well,  he  is 
behind  our  time,  because  he  lived  350  years  ago,  but  that, 
we  had  better  say,  was  before  our  time : — "some  fossil- 
ized professor,"  not  for  his  time,  when  he  was  quite  in 
the  forefront  of  the  education  of  his  day  with  his  hu- 
manism. It  is  well,  therefore,  for  our  time  to  get  better 
acquainted  with  him.  I  have  recently  had  his  Latin  cor- 
respondence translated.  There  are  about  forty  letters 
that  he  wrote  to  his  great  patron.  Dr.  Crato,  during  his 
university  days.  Out  of  them  I  have  taken  my  subject 
for  today,  a  subject  that  ought  to  be  especially  interesting 
to  college  men,  "The  University  Days  of  Ursinus." 

A  word,  first,  in  regard  to  his  life,  so  that  we  may 
get  the  proper  setting  of  this  subject.  He  was  born 
July  18,  1534,  at  Breslau,  in  eastern  Germany,  His 
name,  Zachariah  Baer,  was,  after  the  custom  of  his  day, 

*  Address  delivered  at  Ursinus  College,  Collegeville,  Pa.,  on 
Founder's  Day,  February  19,  1914.  It  has  been  left  unchanged  so 
as  to  be  issued  as  a  tract. 

268 


URSINUS'  UNIVERSITY  DAYS  269 

latinized  into  "Ursinus."  At  the  age  of  sixteen,  he  left 
home  for  the  university  of  Wittenberg.  After  studying 
there  for  seven  years,  from  1550  to  1557,  he  travelled  for 
a  year  in  western  Europe,  and  then  returned  to  Breslau, 
to  teach  languages  and  religion.  But  a  religious  contro- 
versy broke  out  there,  and,  after  two  years,  he  resigned. 
After  spending  a  year  at  Zurich,  he  was  called,  in  1561, 
to  Heidelberg,  as  professor  of  theology  in  the  university 
there.  In  1578,  he  became  professor  of  theology  at  the 
new  university  of  Neustadt,  west  of  Heidelberg,  and 
died  there,  March  6,  1583,  not  quite  fifty  years  of  age. 

He  was  a  very  learned  man,  one  of  the  most  promi- 
nent theologians  and  teachers  of  his  day.  He  belonged 
to  the  second  generation  of  reformers.  Luther,  Me-- 
lancthon,  Zwingli  and  Calvin  belonged  to  the  first  genera- 
tion. But,  in  the  second  generation  of  them,  Ursinus 
ranks  next  to  Bullinger  and  Beza.  And  it  is  a  question 
whether,  on  some  things,  he  does  not  equal,  or  even 
excel  them.  He  was  especially  profound  in  philosophy 
and  theology,  and  acute  in  dialectics,  as  the  logic  of  his 
day  was  called.  He  is  one  of  the  few  persons  of  that  day 
who  was  considered  important  enough,  so  that  his  com- 
plete works  were  gathered  together  and  published.  This 
shows  the  honor  and  esteem  in  which  he  was  held  by  his 
contemporaries. 

The  only  thing  that  tended  to  lessen  his  fame  was 
his  great  modesty.  And  yet  that  trait  is  often,  in  itself, 
a  sign  of  greatness.  For,  in  our  day,  the  greatest  talkers 
don't  keep  still  long  enough  to  accumulate  thoughts. 
Ursinus  was  so  modest  that  I  am  afraid  that  if  he  had 
known  you  were  going  to  name  this  college  after  him, 
he  would  have  declined  the  honor,  because  he  felt  him- 
self unworthy.  For  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  he  was, 
if    anything,    overconscientious,    even    with    a    tinge    of 


270  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

melancholy.  Indeed,  in  his  later  days,  nothing  but  the 
express  command  of  his  prince  could  bring  him  out  into 
public  address.  I  wonder  whether  there  are  any  such 
modest  people  here  in  Ursinus  now.  But  when  he  did 
speak  in  public,  it  was  with  great  power.  Still  he  was 
more  of  a  teacher  than  anything  else.  The  lecturer's 
desk  in  the  university  was  his  throne,  where  he  was  an 
uncrowned  king.  After  his  death,  the  leading  Protestant 
thinkers  of  Europe  vied  to  do  him  honor.  He  left  be- 
hind him  a  generation  of  his  pupils,  who  became  leaders 
of  thought.  As  a  humanist  from  boyhood,  he  stood  in 
the  forefront  of  the  education  of  that  day.  This  college 
need  not  be  ashamed  to  be  named  after  him.  For  he 
was  one  of  the  leading  thinkers  and  educators  of  that 
age.  His  correspondence  with  prominent  persons  in  all 
parts  of  Europe  demonstrates  the  honor  with  which  he 
was  held.  May  Ursinus  College  ever  stand  true  to  the 
lofty  ideals  and  noble  example  of  such  a  man. 

But  I  am  not  to  speak  of  Ursinus  as  he  was  in  his 
later  days — one  of  the  greatest  teachers  of  his  day. 
I  am  to  speak  of  his  youthful  days,  when  he  was  just 
beginning  his  studies,  when  he  was  not  the  great  man 
that  he  afterwards  became.  I  am  to  speak  of  his  college 
days,  when  he  was  not  greater  than  any  student  here. 
And  you  must  not  expect  too  much  from  him  then — not 
more  than  you  expect  from  yourselves.  But,  I  think,  it 
will  bring  you,  who  are  in  college,  all  the  closer  to  him,  as 
you  look  at  him  when  he  was  like  you — a  student.  And 
it  will  also  bring  him  closer  to  you. 

Now,  the  first  thing  that  he  did  in  the  university,  of 
which  we  have  any  record,  was  to  write  poetry.  He 
doubtless  did  other  things  before  that,  for  it  was  not 
until  he  had  been  there  a  year  that  this  poem  appears. 
But  this  poem  is  the  first  writing  that  has  come  down 


URSINUS'  UNIVERSITY  DAYS 


271 


to  us.  I  don't  know  whether  any  of  the  students  of 
Ursinus  College  write  poetry,  whether  the  banks  of  the 
Perkiomen  are  especially  able  to  inspire  the  poetic  Muse, 
or  whether  you  have  the  Muses  around  here  in  the  trees 
on  the  campus,  lurking,  perhaps,  like  owls.  Sometimes 
there  are  real  poets  in  college. 

BjitJJrsiimsjwiLQtfi  poetry,  and  wrote  it  in  his  second^ 
or  sophomore,  year.  What  won't  sophomores  do !  And 
it  was  poetry  in  Latin,  fashioned  somewhat  after  Virgil. 
Now,  we  must  remember  that  the  German  students  (for 
the  European  who  is  able,  like  us  in  America,  to  speak 
only  one  language,  is  a  back  number),  were  trained  to 
speak  Latin  and  Greek  as  fluently  as  their  own  language. 
And  so  it  became  easy  to  them  to  write  in  Latin,  and 
even  in  Latin  poetry. 

The  reason  why  Ursinus  wrote  poetry  is  interesting. 
There  are  many  things  about  Ursinus  that  make  him 
very  much  like  the  average  college  student  of  today,  even 
though  three  and  a  half  centuries  have  intervened.  He, 
like  many  students  today,  had  no  money  to  go  through 
college.  Had  it  not  been  for  friends  at  Breslau,  who 
sent  him  to  Wittenberg,  he  never  would  have  gotten 
there.  And  he  would  never  have  been  able  to  go  on 
in  college  if  he  had  not  found  a  great  friend  in  his 
patron,  Dr.  John  Crato,  one  of  the  greatest  physicians 
of  his  day,  the  private  physician  of  three  of  the  emperors 
of  Germany.  Crato,  without  having  seen  Ursinus,  sent 
him  money  from  Breslau.  And  Ursinus,  overflowing 
with  gratitude,  just  bubbled  over  with  poetry.  That  is 
the  way  to  be  able  to  write  poetry — you  must  bubble. 
But  with  many  of  us,  the  bubbling  only  results  in  froth, 
not  poetry.  And  he  bubbled  over  in  Latin  poetry,  for 
he  lived  in  the  days  of  humanism,  which  made  much  of 
the  classics.     I  will  read  a  part  of  this  first  letter.     It 


272  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

will  be  in  prose  and  not  in  poetry,  for  my  poetic  dic- 
tionary is  frozen  up,  just  at  present,  on  account  of  the 
cold  weather.  The  rhetoric  of  this  letter  may,  perhaps, 
seem  somewhat  exaggerated,  but  you  must  remember  he 
was  only  seventeen  years  of  age.  Still,  this  poem-letter 
is  interesting.  At  the  beginning,  he  refers  to  the  siege 
of  the  city  of  Shechem  by  the  Syrians,  which  produced 
a  great  famine,  but  the  supreme  Father  brought  help,  and 
the  besiegers  fled,  leaving  all  the  spoil  for  the  besieged. 
So,  he  says,  our  merciful  Father  hears  the  cry  of  his 
people  in  distress : 

"Depressed  with  poverty,  the  way  leading  to  the 
Muses  (Parnassus)  was  almost  closed  to  me,  I  had 
ceased  to  expect  any  happiness,  and  was  just  on  the  point 
of  calling  out,  'Fare-ye-well,  ye  Muses,'  at  this  critical 
moment,  the  Heavenly  Father  sent  me  benefactors,  who 
assisted  me  in  my  studies  in  a  way  that  surpassed  all 
my  expectations.  Your  great  kindness,"  he  says  to 
Crato,  "to  an  unknown  protege,  should  justly  cause  your 
benevolence  to  be  better  known.  May  you,  therefore, 
as  is  most  fitting,  be  called  an  ornament  and  light  of 
the  fatherland.  May  your  fame  be  great  among  the 
disciples  of  Aesculapius,  to  whom  you  have  brought  such 
great  honor  and  glory.  Whilst  you  are  surrounded  by 
such  beautiful  virtues,  and  persons  of  such  high  rank, 
how  can  my  poor  Muse  of  poetry  ever  ascend  to  those 
high  merits  of  yours.  Alas !  in  vain  does  she  endeavor 
to  extol  your  high  qualities,  in  vain  does  she  try  to  ex- 
press my  thanks  to  you  in  a  suitable  way.  As  she,  how- 
ever, is  quite  conscious  of  the  noble  way  in  which  you 
have  acted,  she  proves  her  good-will  in  striving  to  do 
this.  My  endeavors  in  this  respect  are  problematical. 
The  real  proof  of  this  will  be  my  works,  because,  I  con- 
fess, I  know  but  little  about  the  art  of  poetry.  I  can  only 
ask  you  to  consider  this  as  a  proof  of  my  gratitude." 

Yes,  it  was  his  gratitude  that  made  him  write  in 
poetry,  and,  for  so  young  a  man,  it  is  quite  creditable. 

His   next  prominent  experience  was  quite   different 


URSINUS"  UNIVERSITY  DAYS  273 

from  anything  that  we  have  here  in  our  colleges.  The 
German  student  will  often  attempt  to  tutor  younger  stu- 
dents or  those  in  lower  classes.  So  Ursinus,  to  increase 
his  exchequer,  took  as  a  student  under  him  the  son  of  a 
citizen  of  Breslau,  who  had  aided  him.  But  he  soon 
found  his  hands  more  than  full.  He  attempted  to  teach 
the  boy,  and  also  to  watch  over  him  very  carefully — too 
rigidly,  perhaps.  And  the  boy,  just  at  the  critical  age  of 
outgrowing  adolescence,  when,  with  the  power  of  a  man, 
he  had  the  common  sense  of  a  pigmy,  soon  bade  de- 
fiance to  his  tutor's  authority.  The  boy  fell  into  bad 
company,  which  made  it  worse,  and  refused  to  reform, 
in  spite  of  Ursinus'  threats  and  tears.  Ursinus  wrote  to 
his  father,  who  wrote  to  the  boy.  He  even  got  Melanc- 
thon  to  use  his  influence  with  the  boy,  but  it  was  all  in 
vain.  The  boy  finally  threatened  to  beat  Ursinus,  and 
did  even  strike  him,  so  that  Ursinus  was  in  despair. 
Finally,  after  tutoring  him  for  about  eight  months,  Ur- 
sinus had  him  taken  home,  and  he  was  discharged  from 
the  ofiice  of  tutor.  Ursinus  was  evidently  not  yet  the 
teacher  he  later  became. 

There  was  another  difference  between  Ursinus  then 
and  the  Ursinus  student  of  today,  Ursinus  had  no  ath- 
letics in  the  university  of  Heidelberg.  German  universities 
do  not  make  athletics  prominent.  Baseball  and  football 
are  unknown,  as  also  cricket  of  the  Briton.  They  have 
no  athletic  sports  or  athletic  matches  between  universities. 
Even  the  German  boy  does  not  have  the  outdoor  games 
that  make  the  life  of  the  American  boy  so  delightful. 
It  would  have  been  well  if  Ursinus  in  this  respect  had 
gone  to  Ursinus  college.  What  he  needed  was  athletics 
for  he  applied  himself  so  closely  that  his  health  suffered. 
Such  athletic  training  as  is  given  now,  would  have  sent 
his  ill-health  to  the  winds  and  prevented  him  from  form- 
is 


274  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

ing  even  in  the  university  a  tinge  of  melancholy.  It 
would  have  prevented  the  shortening  of  his  valuable  life 
by  overstudy  and  underexercise. 

But  there  was  another  experience  of  his  in  the  uni- 
versity that  may  perhaps  be  that  of  some  student  here. 
He  got  into  trouble  with  his  boarding-house  keeper.  Its 
keeper  was  quite  a  prominent  man,  a  Dr.  Vitus,  who 
charged  him  with  setting  a  bad  example  to  other  students. 
He  tells  the  story  to  Dr.  Crato  in  one  of  his  letters. 
"During  my  absence  (from  Wittenberg),  two  barons 
came  here  and  Dr.  Vitus  gave  them  my  rooms.  On  my 
return,  Dr.  Vitus  offered  me  other  rooms,  but  as  they 
were  badly  situated  and  much  too  small,  I  refused  to 
occupy  them."  This  action  made  Dr.  Vitus  angry.  Ur- 
sinus  also  found  that  in  his  absence  these  people  had 
circulated  false  and  unkind  reports  about  him,  that  he 
was  untruthful,  ungrateful  and  disobedient.  A  year 
later.  Dr.  Vitus  was  again  circulating  severe  and  false 
reports  against  him.  Ursinus  thus  writes:  "What  has 
enraged  him  seems  to  be  that  he  imagined  that  I  had 
written  to  his  boarders,  that  the  food  at  his  house  was 
such  poor  stuff  that  the  eating  of  it  made  me  sick.  Of 
nothing  else  does  he  accuse  me,  except  of  ingratitude." 
Ursinus  then  determines  to  do  what  every  one  should 
do  in  the  case  of  evil  reports  that  are  false,  live  them 
down  by  living  for  God,  an  example  that  I  commend  to 
any  who  may  have  to  pass  through  similar  experiences. 
That  these  charges  were  untrue,  is  shown  by  the  fact 
that  his  teacher,  Melancthon,  stood  by  him.  But  as  his 
trouble  came  from  his  boarding-house,  it  may  be  inter- 
esting to  note,  that  during  his  student  days  he  was  in 
not  less  than  nine  boarding-houses,  although  in  one  of 
them  he  stayed  for  five  years.  For  German  universities 
do  not  have  the  dormitory  system  in  vogue  in  American 


URSINUS'  UNIVERSITY  DAYS  275 

colleges. 

Such  are  some  of  the  experiences  of  the  student, 
after  whom,  this  college  is  named.  And  now,  before 
closing,  permit  me  to  call  your  attention  to  some  things 
which  were  prominent  in  his  university  life  and  which 
deserve  to  be  emulated  by  the  students  of  Ursinus  Col- 
lege today,  if  they  would  in  any  way  desire  to  attain 
to  any  such  prominence  as  was  his,  if  only  in  a  small 
degree. 

The  first  thing  to  be  noticed  is  his  industry, — his  in- 
domitable industry.  This  does  not  come  out  so  promi- 
nently in  his  letters,  for  he  is  never  boastful.  The  only 
sign  of  it  in  them  is,  that  he  frequently  speaks  of  being 
very  busy,  so  that  he  apologizes  that  he  has  not  been  able 
to  write  to  his  patron,  Crato.  His  industry  is  evident 
in  other  ways.  The  high  opinion  that  his  teacher,  Me- 
lancthon,  had  of  him,  reveals  it.  Melancthon  quite  over- 
flows over  Ursinus'  first  published  booklet  which  revealed 
the  results  of  his  industry  while  in  the  university.  His 
biographers  speak  of  his  great  industry.  He  was  in- 
dustrious, very  industrious,  in  his  life.  Now  that  is 
the  way  to  go  through  college  properly.  The  student, 
who  in  college,  is  unfaithful  to  his  studies,  is  unfaithful 
to  himself.  His  habits  in  college  will  be  apt  to  become 
his  habits  through  life.  May  I  appeal  to  the  students  of 
Ursinus  to  emulate  Ursinus  in  this  respect.  To  excel 
in  life,  means  to  excel  in  study  here.  There  is  no  royal 
road  to  learning,  but  the  road  that  has  in  it  the  sweat 
of  the  brow  intellectually  and  the  burning  of  the  mid- 
night oil  at  study. 

There  was  another  peculiarity  of  Ursinus  in  the  uni- 
versity, and  that  was,  the  integrity  of  his  character.  The 
student  who  wastes  his  time  in  dissipation,  his  strength 
in  immorality,  only  wrecks  himself.     I  regret  to  say  that 


276  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

scenes  of  dissipation  take  place  only  too  commonly  in 
German  universities,  and  also  in  some  American  uni- 
versities, and  are  not  unknown  in  the  smaller  colleges. 
For  the  period  of  life  of  the  college  and  the  university 
student  is  the  age  of  moral  stress  and  strain.  Speaking 
of  German  universities,  I  can  still  see  with  what  disgust 
the  honored  founder  of  this  college,  my  esteemed  friend, 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Bomberger,  looked  upon  a  lot  of  university 
students  at  Erlangen,  Germany,  in  1884,  drinking  beer 
hilariously  at  a  table  in  a  public  restaurant  in  the  middle 
of  the  street.  For  the  German,  it  seems,  gets  and  drinks 
his  beer  anywhere.  I  remember  the  scenes  of  revelry 
at  Heidelberg  by  the  university  students  such  as  no 
American  school  would  tolerate.  I  need  not  refer  to  the 
sword  duels  that  are  relics  of  barbarism  that  exist  there. 
Such  scenes  were  common  in  Ursinus'  time,  more  com- 
mon than  today.  He  refers  to  them  a  number  of  times 
in  his  correspondence.  But  his  pure  soul  reacted  against 
them.  For  in  each  of  the  German  universities  there  are 
many,  very  many  fine  young  men,  like  him,  who  will  have 
nothing  to  do  with  such  things.  Repeatedly  in  his  let- 
ters does  Ursinus  express  his  disgust  at  such  actions. 
Thus  he  writes :  "The  general  want  of  discipline  here 
fills  my  heart  with  the  greatest  sorrow."  He  repeatedly 
speaks  of  the  roughness  of  the  students,  and  even  of 
riots  among  them,  so  that  some  were  robbed,  yes,  wounded. 
He  once  declared  that  he  would  not  have  stayed  there 
any  longer,  but  for  the  sake  of  his  teacher,  Melancthon, 
whom  he  greatly  loved.  Ursinus  says  he  kept  aloof  from 
such  bad  company,  for  a  man  is  known  by  the  company 
he  keeps.  What  an  inspiration  this  noble  life  of  Ur- 
sinus, pure  in  the  very  midst  of  temptation  and  sin, 
should  be  to  every  student  of  this  college.  What  an 
incentive  for  each  to  set  up  noble  ideals  of  the  strictest 


URSINUS'  UNIVERSITY  DAYS  277 

integrity  and  highest  conscientiousness. 

"My  strength  is  as  the  strength  of  ten, 
Because  my  heart  is  pure." 

Of  course,  all  this  integrity  was  based  on  a  Christian 
experience,  for  religion  is  the  basis  of  character.  Christ 
is  the  model  for  every  student,  and  he  is  also  their  in- 
spirer  to  nobility  and  purity  of  life. 

There  might  be  another  prominent  trait  of  Ursinus 
noted  in  closing.  It  is  his  deep  gratitude.  This  is  very 
prominent  in  his  letters.  Ursinus  was  a  poor  boy,  as 
we  have  seen.  But  for  Dr.  Crato,  he  would  not  have 
gotten  through  college.  He  was  not  like,  alas,  some 
students  now,  ungrateful  and  selfish.  It  is  very  beautiful 
to  see  how  he  constantly  expresses  this  to  Dr.  Crato.  In 
these  letters  it  is  evident  that  he  is  constantly  trying  to 
help  Dr.  Crato,  as  well  as  he  can,  especially  in  finding  for 
him  medical  books  and  also  literary  works,  for  Crato  was 
a  great  literateur,  famous  for  his  Latin  style.  So  as  Ur- 
sinus was  nearer  the  great  book  markets  of  Leipsic  and 
Frankford,  than  Crato  in  distant  Breslau  or  Vienna,  he 
constantly  calls  Crato's  attention  to  new  rare  books  and 
buys  them  when  desired.  In  his  second  letter,  he  writes 
to  Crato:  "It  will  never  seem  to  me  as  if  I  in  the  smallest 
degree  repaid  you  or  redeemed  even  the  smallest  part 
of  my  indebtedness  to  you."  And,  in  one  of  his  last 
letters  in  the  university,  he  wrote  to  Crato:  "Pray 
do  not  hesitate  to  ask  for  anything  you  might  wish 
done  for  you.  To  be  of  service  to  you  is  not  only 
a  joy  to  me,  but  your  right.  And  if  only  one  of  the 
small  services  I  can  do  for  you  causes  you  pleasure,  it 
will  be  myself  that  owes  you  gratitude."  No  wonder 
that  the  third  and  last  part  of  our  beautiful  Heidelberg 
catechism  is  headed  "Gratitude."   Ursinus  was  full  of  it, 


278  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

he  lived  gratitude  and  could  therefore  so  ably  expound  it. 
Is  there  not  a  lesson  here  for  college  students?  One 
of  the  highest  and  finest  graces  is  gratitude.  And  yet 
how  often  are  college  students  ungrateful.  Many  of 
them,  it  is  true,  are  grateful,  very  grateful  indeed,  and 
all  their  after  years  show  it  to  their  friends  and  Alma 
Mater.  But  there  are  sometimes  those  who  are  un- 
grateful,— ungrateful  to  those  who  have  helped  in  their 
education  and  forgetful  for  what  they  owed  to  them, — 
forgetful  for  money  loaned  to  them,  perhaps,  to  help 
them  through  college, — forgetful  of  parents,  who,  per- 
haps, with  the  greatest  sacrifices,  have  put  them  through 
college,  and  forgetful  of  their  parents'  prayers,  as  well 
as  of  their  gifts.  O  such  things  are  shameful  and  such 
persons  ought  to  be  shamefaced  all  the  remainder  of 
their  lives.  They  ought  not  to  be  able  to  look  a  man 
straight  in  the  face.  And  how  often,  after  students  get 
out  of  college,  do  they  forget  their  Alma  Mater.  Some 
of  them  even  take  it  for  granted  that  she  owes  them  an 
education,  when  all  the  fees  they  ever  paid  to  the  college 
would  not  pay  one-tenth,  perhaps  one-hundredth,  of 
what  it  has  cost  the  college  to  educate  them.  My  hearer, 
Ursinus'  example  should  be  a  stern  rebuke  to  ingratitude 
of  whatever  sort  and  a  strong  incentive  to  great  gratitude 
to  the  friends  and  the  college  that  have  helped  you  to 
gain  an  education.  You  ought  to  say  to  your  patrons 
and  to  this  college  what  Ursinus  did.  Sons  of  Ursinus, 
you  ought  to  follow  his  example  as  he  writes  to  Crato,  "I 
am  fully  aware  of  what  I  owe  you.  It  will  never  be  pos- 
sible in  the  smallest  way  to  repay  you.  The  only  thing 
I  can  do  is  this,  continually  to  pray  our  Heavenly  Father 
to  reward  you  with  his  richest  blessings,  both  in  this  life 
and  the  life  to  come."  And  such  gratitude  will  trans- 
mute your  dross  into  gold  and  transfigure  your  life. 


URSINUS'  UNIVERSITY  DAYS 


279 


"A  thousand  blessings,  Lord,  to  us  Thou  dost  impart. 
We   ask   one  blessing  more,   O   Lord — a  thankful 
heart." 


PART  IV 

CONCLUSION 


CHAPTER  I 

THE    PECULIAR    SIGNIFICANCE    OF    THE    PUBLICATION    OF 
THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM  IN  1 563* 

On  March  13,  1781,  the  world  was  startled  by  the 
discovery  of  a  new  planet,  Uranus.  This  discovery  of 
the  addition  of  a  new  planet  to  our  solar  system  caused 
great  wonder  and  joy  everywhere.  But  the  aberrations 
of  its  orbit  could  not  be  explained,  until  finally  it  was 
suggested  that  there  was  perhaps  another  planet  beyond 
it.  The  course  of  this  unknown  planet  was  carefully 
calculated  and  its  position  located  before  it  was  ever 
discovered.  It  was  then  discovered  simultaneously  by 
two  astronomers,  Adams  of  England,  and  Leverrier  of 
Paris,  in  1846,  and  named  Neptune.  Since  then,  as  our 
telescopes  have  become  larger  and  stronger,  new  fixed 
stars  have  been  discovered  and  also  many  wonderful 
nebulae.  Suns  larger  than  our  sun  and  solar  systems, 
compared  with  which,  ours  is  merely  a  pigmy,  have  been 
discovered  by  the  score.  So  that  such  discoveries  have 
become  rather  a  commonplace  by  this  time,  and  they  do 
not  cause  the  wonder  and  excitement  caused  by  the  dis- 
covery of  Uranus  and  Neptune. 

I  have  told  this  romantic  story  of  the  stars,  because 
the  publication  of  the  Heidelberg  catechism  was  like  the 
bursting  forth  of  a  new  star  in  the  heavens.  Stars,  there 
were  many  in  the  heavens  at  that  time, — I  am  now  speak- 

*  Address  delivered  at  Central  Theological  Seminary,  Day- 
ton, in  the  fall  of  1913,  with  a  few  additions  in  reply  to  "Studies 
on  the  Heidelberg  Catechism." 

283 


284  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

ing  of  the  stars  figuratively  to  represent  the  different 
catechisms, — catechisms,  there  were  many  in  the  six- 
teenth century.  Their  reprint  shows  that  there  were 
thirty-eight  in  south  Germany  and  eighty-eight  in  middle 
Germany,  in  all  one  hundred  and  twenty-six.  And  when 
the  north  German  catechisms  are  reprinted,  the  number 
will  probably  make  a  total  of  between  one  hundred  and 
fifty  and  one  hundred  and  seventy-five,  to  which  must  be 
added  the  Reformed  catechisms  of  Switzerland  and  a  few 
of  other  lands.  And  yet,  of  them  all,  only  two  have  sur- 
vived until  this  time  as  world-wide  catechisms,  the  cate- 
chism of  Luther,  of  1529,  and  the  Heidelberg  catechism, 
published  over  a  quarter  of  a  century  later.  Only  one 
other  Reformed  catechism  of  that  day  has  continued  in 
use  up  to  our  time,  the  Emden  catechism, — a  catechism 
from  which,  as  we  have  seen,  some  of  our  Heidelberg 
is  drawn.  Its  influence  on  the  world  has,  however,  been 
very  slight,  as  it  has  been  mainly  a  local  catechism.  Only 
the  Luther  catechism  and  the  Heidelberg  remain  unto 
this  day,  three  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  their  birth. 
Hence  the  birth  of  the  Heidelberg  catechism  must 
have  had  some  significance  about  it  that  was  peculiar. 
For  more  than  twenty-five  years,  since  the  publication  of 
Luther's  catechism,  in  1563,  no  such  world-wide  cate- 
chism had  appeared.  And  since  the  Heidelberg  cate- 
chism has  appeared  three  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago, 
only  one  catechism  of  world-wide  significance  has  been 
published,  the  Shorter  catechism  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  Catechisms  have  come  and  catechisms  have 
gone.  Older  catechisms,  though  excellent,  like  that  of 
Brenz,  the  reformer,  of  Wurtemberg;  newer  ones,  like 
Pezel's  at  Bremen,  and  the  Zweibriicken  catechism,  have 
all  passed  away.  But  the  Heidelberg  has  continued. 
There  must,  therefore,  have  been  some  pecuHar  signifi- 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  CATECHISM       285 

cance  about  it  when  it  appeared,  that  has  made  it  shine 
like  a  star  of  the  first  magnitude  and  continue  to  shine 
with  such  undimmed  histre  all  these  centuries.  I,  there- 
fore, call  your  attention  to  the  peculiar  significance 
of  the  publication  of  the  Heidelberg  catechism  at  the 
time  of  its  publication,  in  1563.  It  had  a  peculiar  mes- 
sage to  the  world  of  its  day,  that  struck  the  world  like 
the  discovery  of  a  new  planet  or  star.     What  was  it? 

Before  going  into  its  peculiar  significance  for  its  day, 
permit  me  also  to  call  your  attention  to  a  fact  about 
the  Heidelberg,  that  makes  what  was  significant  for  that 
day,  to  be  also  significant  for  our  day.  It  has  been 
said,  and  with  truth,  that  of  all  the  great  reformers, 
Zwingli,  the  founder  of  our  church,  was  the  most  mod- 
ern, that  is,  his  ideas  were  best  suited  to  modern  times. 
That  is  true.  There  was  not  the  scholasticism  about  him 
that  there  was  about  the  monk  Luther.  And  as  a  patriot 
reformer,  he  is  especially  suited  to  our  American  free 
spirit.  But  what  is  true  of  Zwingli  is  also  true  of  the 
Heidelberg  catechism.  It  is  the  most  modern  of  the 
old  catechisms, — of  the  three  great  world-catechisms,  the 
one  most  suited  to  the  spirit  of  modern  times.  Though 
three  hundred  and  fifty  years  old,  it  is  not  old.  It  has 
been  ever  new  and  as  new  today  as  when  it  was  issued. 
It  is,  like  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  enshrined  in  it, — to  use  our 
Saviour's  own  expression, — "a  well  of  water  springing 
up  unto  everlasting  life," — a  perpetual  fountain  of  joy 
and  comfort  and  hope.  It  has  been  like  Christ, — the 
same  yesterday,  today  and  forever,  because  it  has  so 
much  of  Christ  in  it.  So  that,  what  was  of  special 
significance  for  its  day  will  be  especially  significant  for 
our  day.  And  the  lessons  that  I  shall  draw  will  be 
suited  to  us  as  they  were  to  those  who  lived  in  the  day 
when  it  was  first  published. 


286  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

I.      IT  IS  IRENIC 

The  first  striking  peculiarity  of  the  catechism  was, 
that  it  was  intended  to  be  a  union  catechism.  You  re- 
member how  it  came  into  being, — how  the  church  of 
the  Palatinate  was  then  greatly  divided.  High-Luther- 
ans, like  Hesshuss,  read  every  other  kind  of  Lutheran 
out  of  the  church.  And  as  for  the  Reformed,  well, 
Hesshuss  excommunicated  Klebitz,  one  of  the  Reformed 
ministers  at  Heidelberg.  As  to  catechisms  it  was  no 
better.  The  Church-Order  of  the  Elector,  Otto  Henry, 
of  the  Palatinate,  which  was  the  law  for  the  Palatinate 
before  our  catechism  was  published,  ordered  that  the 
catechism  of  Brenz,  the  low-Lutheran  reformer  of  south 
Germany,  was  to  be  used.  But  Hesshuss  and  his  party, 
in  his  zeal  for  Luther,  wanted  Luther's  catechism  to 
be  used.  So  to  stop  the  strife,  Elector  Frederick  HI, 
who  had  succeeded  Otto  Henry  on  the  throne,  cut  the 
Gordian  knot  by  ordering  a  new  catechism  to  be  written 
to  heal  these  dissensions.  And  so  the  Heidelberg  cate- 
chism came  into  being. 

The  Heidelberg  catechism  has,  therefore,  always  been 
looked  upon  as  an  irenical  catechism ;  that  is,  one  mak- 
ing for  peace  and  intended  to  bring  about  church 
union.  It  is  true,  it  does  not  seem  to  be  altogether 
irenic,  and  its  irenical  character  has  often  been  pressed 
too  far,  we  think.  For  it  boldly  declares  itself,  especially 
against  three  opponents, — against  Unitarians  and  Pelagi- 
ans in  answers  33,  35,  62,  63  and  114;  against  Romanism 
in  answers  30,  57,  62,  63,  64,  80,  95  and  98,  and  against 
the  high-Lutherans,  with  their  new  doctrine  of  ubiquity 
in  answers  47,  48,  76  and  78.  But  true  irenics  will 
never  give  up  fundamentals  and  the  catechism  is  right 
there.     Present-day  irenics  often  goes  too  far,  so  far  as 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  CATECHISM       287 

to  imperil  the  whole  cause  of  church-union,  because  it 
blurs  out  all  differences  and  gives  a  composite  creed 
as  meaningless  as  a  composite  picture.  Much  irenics 
now  is  only  syllabub  and  gives  us  a  creed  of  the  jelly-fish 
variety.  The  Heidelberg  catechism  is  truly  irenic,  for 
it  holds  to  fundamentals,  and  yet  is  favorable  to  union. 
It  gives  us  a  solid  foundation  on  which  to  base  our  union. 
For  there  is  a  fact  that  must  be  remembered  because 
of  its  peculiar  significance  then.  The  age  in  which  it 
appeared  was  a  very  polemical  age,  especially  the  latter 
half  of  the  sixteenth  century.  The  reformers  used  harsh, 
very  harsh  words  against  each  other.  We  would  be 
sorry  to  see  them  used  today.  But  we  must  remember 
that  such  expressions  and  denunciations  were  an  inheri- 
tance to  them  from  the  monkish  age  before  them,  when 
the  Catholic  Church  anathematized  (and  no  one  can  curse 
like  the  Pope).  Besides  there  is  another  reason  for  the 
harsh  language  of  the  reformers.  In  their  reaction  against 
error,  especially  against  the  errors  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
their  adherence  to  principle  became  so  dear  and  so  in- 
tense that  they  often  tended  to  become  narrow.  They 
had  had  to  fight  so  hard  for  what  they  had,  that  it 
seemed  so  dear  to  them  that  they  could  not  look  beyond 
it.  Zwingli  was  the  only  one  who  held  out  his  hand  to 
Luther.  And  so,  too,  the  Heidelberg  catechism  was  the 
only  catechism  that  held  its  hands  out  to  Lutherans  and 
the  Reformed  alike,  for  the  Reformed  claimed  it  came 
under  the  Altered  Augsburg  Confession.  The  aim  of 
Frederick  was  an  honest  one.  He  wanted  to  make  it  a 
catechism  which  w'ould  heal  the  differences  in  his  land. 
When  we  first  began  our  historical  researches,  more  than 
thirty  years  ago,  we  were  for  years  greatly  puzzled  by 
contradictory  facts  about  the  catechism.  Its  contents 
were  decidedly  Calvinistic.     But  every  now  and  then  a 


288  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

statement  about  Frederick  III  showed  he  wanted  the 
Heidelberg  catechism  to  be  under  the  law  of  Germany, 
which  allowed  only  the  Augsburg  Confession.  How  to 
harmonize  these  has  been  a  problem.  But  it  has  finally 
come  to  us.  Frederick  wanted  to  make  the  catechism 
Lutheran  enough  so  it  might  bring  its  adherents  under 
the  Augsburg  Confession  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  the 
only  legal  Protestant  church  of  Germany  of  that  day 
(the  Reformed  not  being  legally  recognized  until  at  the 
end  of  the  Thirty  Years'  War,  1648).  He  wanted  it  to 
be  under  the  Augsburg  Confession,  but  (and  this  is  sig- 
nificant) the  Altered  Augsburg  Confession.  And  Fred- 
erick, while  thus  placing  it  under  the  Altered  Augsburg, 
also  wanted  his  catechism  to  be  broad  enough  to  include 
in  it  the  Reformed.  Whether  the  catechism  came  up 
to  that  is  the  question.  It  was  only  to  be  expected, 
when  both  authors  were  Reformed,  that  it  would  wink 
toward  the  Reformed.  And  Elector  Frederick  III 
winked  at  this  dereliction, — that  is,  he  passed  it  by  with 
the  thought  that  the  catechism  was  better  than  either 
Lutheran  and  Reformed, — that  it  was  according  to  the 
Bible.     The  catechism  was  therefore  irenical. 

What  a  lesson  for  our  day.  Therefore  it  is  the  most 
modern  of  all  the  catechisms.  For  it  is  entirely  up  to 
the  spirit  of  our  age.  There  is  none  of  the  great  world- 
catechisms  on  which  the  various  Protestant  churches  could 
so  well  unite  as  the  Heidelberg.  This  is  a  day  of  irenics, 
when  the  union  of  the  churches  is  in  the  air.  We  may  in- 
dividually differ  as  to  the  methods  of  union,  but  we  all 
agreed  on  its  principle  and  importance, — that  it  is  right 
and  necessary.  How  true  are  the  words  of  that  hymn 
about  Christ's  prayer  at  the  Lord's  Supper,  that  "they  all 
may  be  one." 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  CATECHISM       289 

"O  may  that  holy  prayer, 
His  tenderest  and  best, 
The  utterance  of  His  latest  care 
'Ere  to  His  throne  He  passed, 
No  longer  unfulfilled  remain 
^  The  world's  offense.  Thy  peoples'  stain. 

II.      A    CREED-CATECHISM 

2.  A  second  peculiarity  of  the  Heidelberg  catechism 
at  the  time  of  its  publication  was,  that  it  was  a  creed- 
catechism.  That  was  its  second  peculiarity  over  against 
any  other  catechism  of  its  day.  They  had  creeds  in 
those  days, — great  creeds,  which  were  accepted  or 
adopted  by  the  Church,  as  the  Augsburg  Confession  of 
the  Lutherans,  and  the  Second  Helvetic  Confession  of 
the  Reformed.  And  they  had  catechisms  in  those  days, 
many  of  them  as  we  have  seen.  But  these  catechisms 
were  not  intended  for  church  creeds,  but  only  for  use 
in  catechization.  They  would  have  both  a  creed  and  a 
catechism.  Thus  the  Lutheran  Church  had  as  its  creeds 
the  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  Smalcald  Articles,  and 
as  its  catechisms,  Luther's  and  Brenz'.  It  was  not  sup- 
posed that  a  creed  could  be  a  catechism  or  a  catechism 
a  creed, — until  the  Heidelberg  catechism  came.  Elector 
Frederick  HI  did  not  dare  draw  it  up  as  a  creed  only, 
for  was  not  the  Augsburg  Confession  the  only  legal 
creed  of  Germany?  He  knew  he  would  be  setting  him- 
self against  German  law  if  he  had  done  so.  Yet  he 
wanted  not  merely  a  catechism,  for  the  theological  (ques- 
tions between  him  and  the  high-Lutherans  were  too 
severely  theological  for  that.  And  yet  they  must  be 
stated,  so  as  to  vindicate  his  theological  position.  You 
see  he  was  in  an  awkward  dilemma.     He  had  to  have 

19 


290  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

a  creed-catechism,  which  seemed  impossible.  And  the 
Heidelberg  catechism  solved  the  impossible.  It  made 
the  impossible  possible.  That  was  one  of  the  most  sig- 
nificant things  about  it  in  the  days  of  its  birth.  It  was 
written  to  be  in  some  sense  the  creed  of  the  church  and 
at  the  same  tme  to  be  the  catechism  for  the  youth.  It 
aimed  to  be,  like  the  Gospel  it  enshrined,  profound  yet 
simple,  deep  yet  clear,  doctrinal  yet  with  a  living  the- 
ology,— a  strange  union  of  opposites.  So  the  catechism 
was  both  the  creed  of  the  Church  as  well  as  the  cate- 
chism of  the  children,  and  as  well  adapted  for  the  one 
as  the  other.  The  minister  would  preach  on  it  on  Sun- 
day afternoons,  expounding  its  great  profound  truths, 
and  then  he  would  teach  its  simple  faith  to  the  children 
in  the  schools.  This  has  always  been  one  of  the  most 
remarkable  peculiarities  of  our  catechism.  Some,  it  is 
true,  have  criticized  it  as  being  too  much  of  a  creed  to 
be  a  catechism,  and  others,  as  being  too  much  of  a 
catechism  to  be  a  good  creed.  But  they  have  been  few. 
Its  usefulness  for  both  purpose  has  answered  such  de- 
tractors. 

The  objections  to  the  catechism  are  mainly  of  two 
kinds,  pedagogical  and  doctrinal.  Rev.  Prof.  George 
W.  Richards,  D.D.,  in  his  recent  work,  "Studies  on  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism,"  pages  146-170,  favors  the  objec- 
tions to  the  Heidelberg.  On  page  165  he  notes  the 
objections  to  the  reformation  catechisms,  which,  of 
course,  include  the  Heidelberg. 

1.  They  discuss  questions  of  abstract  doctrine,  which 
have  lost  their  significance  for  our  age. 

2.  The  material  in  the  catechism  is  not  adapted  to 
the  child,  neither  in  his  intellectual  capacity  nor  to  his 
religious  experience. 

3.  The  catechisms  grew  out  of  the  ancient  rather 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  CATECHISM 


291 


than  the  modern  methods  of  Bible  study. 

4.  Even  the  doctrinal  systems  of  the  catechisms  no 
longer  satisfy  the  religious  consciousness  of  our  time. 

These  objections,  however,  are  summed  up  in  the 
two  mentioned  above. 

I.  The  pedagogical  objection:  "Their  material  is  not 
adapted  to  the  child,  either  in  his  intellectual  capacity  or 
religious  experience."  This  brings  to  view  the  modern 
pedagogy,  which  is  essentially  rationalistic  and  tends  to 
minimize,  if  not  to  utterly  destroy,  the  supernatural. 
Who  was  the  originator  of  this  movement?  Rosseau, 
whose  confession  of  faith  would  not  satisfy  even  a  Uni- 
tarian today.  He  held  that  the  child  was  not  to  be 
taught  religion  till  he  came  to  years  of  discretion.  This 
pedagogy  rules  out  the  teaching  of  what  the  child  does 
not  understand.  It  will  therefore  rule  out  all  teaching 
to  the  children  about  God  (because  they  cannot  appre- 
hend Him),  all  about  sin,  salvation,  regeneration  and 
immortality,  all  of  which  are  beyond  the  ken  of 
even  those  of  us  who  are  grown-ups.  It  rules  out  all 
religious  propositions  from  education.  But  a  child  needs 
to  be  taught  the  great  truths  of  religion,  even  if  he  does 
not  understand  all  about  them.  He  needs  religion  to 
enable  him  to  grow  up  useful  and  honest  and  Christ- 
like. And  nowhere  will  one  find  it  more  attractively 
presented  than  in  our  catechism,  where  it  is  pictured  as 
a  "comfort."  But  this  modern  pedagogy  holds  that 
nothing  is  to  be  taught  to  the  child  that  is  beyond  his 
intellectual  capacity.  Well,  what  is  the  use  of  teaching 
the  child  anything  at  all,  for  everything  that  comes  to 
the  child  is  new  and  to  him  unknown  before?  The  new 
pedagog}^  paralyzes  all  progress  in  the  child.  And  it  also 
bankrupts  all  education,  for  the  child  is  always  learning 
the  unknown.     Cut  that  incentive  off  and  what  incentive 


292 


THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 


has  he  for  any  education.  The  fundamental  mistake  of 
modern  education  is,  that  it  makes  education  to  be  every- 
thing. It  does  not  believe  in  instruction.  Nothing  is  to 
be  put  into  the  child  but  what  is  gotten  out  of  him,  is  its 
rule.  We  believe  that  the  older  view  of  education,  which 
included  both  education  and  instruction,  is  better.  It  is 
certainly  a  broader  view  of  education.  There  are  cer- 
tainly some  things  that  we  must  put  into  the  mind  of 
the  child.  And  these  are  especially  the  doctrines  which 
will  mould  the  child's  character.  But  they  are  the  things 
the  child  does  not  and  cannot  fully  understand, — the 
blessed  doctrines  of  our  faith.  No,  we  believe  in  the 
principle  of  the  older  pedagogy,  that  the  greater,  larger 
and  more  important  the  ideas  placed  before  the  child, 
the  greater  the  child  will  become.  The  child  needs  the 
inspiration  of  great  ideals,  ideals  which  he  does  not 
understand,  yet  which  he,  according  to  his  inquisitive 
nature,  can  attack  constantly.  For  he  is  always  attack- 
ing the  new  and  non-understandable.  The  unknown  is 
the  continued  incentive  to  the  child.  So  when  this  ped- 
agogy takes  this  incentive  away,  it  is  doing  what  harms 
the  child.  It  does  not  understand  the  instincts  of  the 
child.  And  it  especially  mocks  the  early  natural  religious 
instincts  of  the  child  by  giving  it  a  stone  for  bread. 
This  is  the  root-idea  of  modern  pedagogy. 

Doubtless  our  opponents  would  reply,  that  they  do 
not  rule  out  religious  ideas.  Well,  if  they  don't  they 
are  giving  up  the  root-principle  of  their  pedagogy,  which 
is,  that  profound  subjects  must  not  be  presented  to  the 
child,  because  he  can  not  understand  them.  Any  true 
religious  ideas,  such  as  God,  sin,  salvation,  eternity,  are 
the  most  profound  of  ideas. 

The  new  pedagogy  rails  against  the  old  pedagogy, 
often  tearing  it  up  root  and  branch.     But  the  older  ped- 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  CATECHISM       293 

agogy  has  produced  the  greatest  men  of  genius  and  the 
highest  minds  in  the  past.  Present  civilization  is  only 
the  product  of  their  efforts.  Calvinism  and  Puritanism, 
what  mighty  thinkers  they  have  produced ;  in  comparison 
with  them,  the  new  pedagogy  has  as  yet  produced  nothing. 
An  education  that  has  produced  such  leaders  did  so 
why? — because  it  has  great  elements  in  its  education. 
And  it  was  the  supernatural  that  made  them  great.  We 
believe  that  the  catechisms  that  have  the  older  ideas 
of  God,  sin,  regeneration  and  immortality  will  produce 
better  children  and  higher  manhood  and  womanhood. 
They  are  what  the  children  need.  They  are  profoundly 
impressed  by  them.  And  they  are  nowhere  taught  with 
such  power  as  in  books  like  the  Heidelberg.  What  great 
thinkers  the  Reformed  Church  has  in  the  past  produced 
on  the  basis  of  the  Heidelberg.  H  she  gives  up  that 
basis,  what  will  she  produce  ? 

The  other  objection  to  the  Heidelberg  catechism  is 
the  theological.  The  new  theology  does  not  like  it,  be- 
cause out  of  sympathy  with  its  doctrines,  especially  the 
substitutionary  atonement  of  Christ  and  even  the  deity 
of  Jesus  Christ.  The  new  theology,  according  to  "Stud- 
ies in  the  Heidelberg  Catechism"  (page  147),  travesties 
the  old  view  of  the  doctrine  of  God  and  does  so  by  be- 
coming there  essentially  pantheistic.  Its  doctrine  of  man 
(page  147)  is  evolutionary,  for  it  traces  sin  to  our  brute 
nature.  Then  the  fall  of  man  is  a  fall  up  and  not  down. 
The  third  presupposition  given  there  is  that  religion  is 
a  life.  That  is  not  new.  The  old  theology  also  held  it 
to  be  a  life  in  the  Holy  Spirit.  And  as  to  the  fourth 
mentioned  there,  the  kingdom  of  God,  this  is  not  a  new 
discovery  of  the  new  theology,  for  the  old  theology 
held  it,  though  it  did  not  emphasize  it  as  much.  But 
the  danger  of  this  over-increasing  emphasis  on  the  king- 


294  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

dom  of  God  is  that  we  are  getting  so  much  sociology  in 
religion  that  the  spirituality  is  all  gone, — the  ethical  has 
taken  its  place.  But  the  ethical  will  be  spiritless  and 
sociology,  ineffective,  without  spirituality  as  its  inspira- 
tion. Religion  has  lost  this  in  this  age,  due  to  the  new 
theology.  She  needs  to  regain  it  again,  if  she  would  be 
mighty,  for  the  victory  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  "Studies 
in  the  Heidelberg  Catechism"  (page  165),  quotes  Pro- 
fessor Hall,  who  generally  poses  as  a  great  expert  in 
pedagogy.  It  seems  to  us  he  does  not  know  what  he  is 
talking  about  when  he  there  says :  "The  most  careful 
study  of  the  child's  mind  shows  that  before  eighteen  or 
twenty  years  of  age  there  is  no  interest  in  anything 
Pauline  and  that  other  elements  than  the  Bible,  than 
Paul's,  should  take  precedence  up  to  that  age.  "That 
has  not  been  our  experience  as  a  pastor.  We  have  found 
that  the  children  of  the  adolescent  period  are  deeply  in- 
terested in  the  Pauline,  profoundly  impressed  with  the 
doctrine  of  justification  of  Paul.  It  is  what  their  nature 
calls  for.  Perhaps  a  doctrine  of  justification,  such  as 
Professor  Hall  teaches,  which  emasculates  it  of  its  centre 
of  grace,  does  not  appeal  to  the  child.  That  is  probably 
a  reason  why  he  makes  such  a  blundering  statement. 
Professor  Richards  writes  approvingly  of  Rev.  Prof.  W. 
C.  Schaffer's  Catechetical  Manual.  We  would  like  to 
ask,  why  has  Professor  Schaeffer  omitted  the  Pauline. 
Is  it  a  concession  to  this  new  pedagogy?  If  so,  we  de- 
precate it,  for  we  have  had  too  high  an  opinion  of  him 
for  that.  But  the  Heidelberg  does  not  avoid  the  Pauline. 
It  takes  in  the  whole  of  the  New  Testament  in  all  its 
fulness  of  the  revelation  of  the  plan  of  God  for  our 
salvation. 

We  must  confess  to  an  honest  question  when  such 
things  are  mooted.     It  is,  "How  can  ministers  and  pro- 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  CATECHISM 


295 


fessors,  who  at  ordination  and  at  induction  into  office, 
solemnly  promise  to  maintain  and  defend  the  Heidelberg 
catechism,  now  try  to  criticize  it  and  undermine  its  au- 
thority" :  the  consistency  and  ecclesiastical  honesty  of  such 
actions,  we  are,  to  say  the  least,  too  obtuse  to  see. 

We  deprecate  any  attempt  to  set  aside  the  Heidelberg 
in  our  Reformed  Church,  believing  that  such  an  attempt 
will  divide  the  Church.  There  are  too  many  of  us  too 
deeply  attached  to  it  to  see  it  dishonored.  We  believe, 
however,  that  if  its  answers  were  abbreviated,  as  is  done 
in  the  excellent  Shorter  Heidelberg  catechism  by  my 
colleague,  Rev.  Prof.  David  Van  Home,  D.D.,  it  is  adapt- 
able to  our  needs.  The  Heidelberg  that  has  been  so 
great  and  done  so  much  for  our  Church,  is  yet  needed 
to  make  her  great  in  the  future  as  in  the  past  and  to 
make  her  able  to  do  much  for  the  world's  salvation  and 
the  victory  of  our  faith. 

III.      AN  EXPERIMENTAL  CATECHISM 

3.  But  there  was  a  third  significance  in  the  Heidel- 
berg at  the  time  of  its  birth.  It  was  an  experimental 
catechism, — a  catechism  of  the  heart  as  well  as  of  the 
head.  It  was  founded  on  the  psycological  experiences 
through  which  a  Christian  passes.  It  was  not  a  mere 
cold  theological  treatise,  but  one  of  warm  living  faith. 
Most  of  the  catechisms  of  its  day  were  inclined  to  be 
mere  theological  statements.  Occasionally  we  find  a 
catechism  which  aimed  to  bring  out  the  experimental 
side  of  religion  as  those  of  the  Lasco  type.  But  none 
of  them  ever  began  to  approach  the  Heidelberg  in  the 
breadth  and  depth  of  personal  experience.  Thus  take 
the  prominence  given  by  it  to  religion  as  a  personal  com- 
fort, to   faith  as  a  hearty  confidence,  to  assurance  of 


296  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

faith,  these  and  many  more  show  its  experimental  char- 
acter. Its  questions  are  not  merely  in  the  third  person 
singular  or  first  person  plural,  as  in  other  catechisms,  but 
many  in  the  second  person  singular,  thus  making  them 
direct  questions  to  the  catechumen,  and  the  answers  are 
often  in  the  first  person,  as  expressions  of  personal  faith 
by  the  catechumen.  Thus,  the  first  question  and  an- 
swer: "What  is  thy  only  comfort?"  "That  I,  with  body 
and  soul  am  not  my  own,  etc.,  also  answers  5,  32,  39, 
44,  52,  58,  59,  60,  61,  94,  103,  104,  105,  III,  112  and  129, 
17  in  all.  All  this  has  made  the  Heidelberg  the  greatest 
catechism  of  experience  and  that  undoubtedly  has  been 
one  of  the  causes  of  its  wide-spread  popularity. 

And  yet,  strange  to  say,  this  very  peculiarity  of  the 
Heidelberg  has  been  criticized  and  criticized  by  friends 
as  near  to  us  theologically  as  the  Presbyterians.  Rev. 
Prof.  B.  Warfield,  of  Princeton,  in  the  Princeton  Re- 
view, 1908,  page  565,  charges  that  our  catechism  is  not 
free  from  a  sort  of  leaven  of  spiritual  utilitarianism 
when  it  asks,  "What  is  thy  comfort,  what  profit,  etc." 
He  charges  it  as  being  hedonistic  and  attempting  to 
attract  the  child  to  religion  by  hedonistic  and  selfish 
ideas  of  enjoyment.  Well,  we  would  reply  that  if  the 
Heidelberg  is  a  sinner  in  this  respect.  Dr.  Warfield's 
Shorter  catechism  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  a 
sinner,  too,  for  it  has  several  questions  which  begin  with 
"what  are  the  benefits,"  as  36,  ^H ,  38.  And  if  the  Hei- 
delberg catechism  is  wrong,  then  the  New  Testament  is 
wrong,  for  our  Saviour  makes  religion  a  matter  of  profit, 
as  Jesus  says:  "What  shall  it  profit  a  man,"  etc. 
Christ  says :  "Come  unto  me  and  I  will  give  you  rest," 
etc.  Both  Christ  and  Paul  place  religion  before  us 
as  eternal  happiness.  Dr.  Warfield's  quarrel  is  not  with 
the  Heidelberg,  but  with  the  New  Testament.     Besides, 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  CATECHISM 


297 


he  mistakes  this  idea  in  the  Heidelberg,  for  it  does  not 
present  religion  as  merely  utilitarian,  hedonistic  and  sel- 
fish, but,  as  it  says  in  its  6th  answer,  that  "we  might 
live  with  him  in  eternal  happiness,  to  glorify  and  praise 
Him.  This  last  clause  is  exactly  like  the  first  answer 
of  the  Shorter  catechism  of  the  Presbyterians,  that  "the 
chief  end  of  man  is  to  glorify  God  and  enjoy  him  for- 
ever." If  the  Heidelberg  is  wrong,  we  ask  him  is  his 
Shorter  catechism  right. 

And  then  comes  Rev.  Dr.  D.  S.  Gregory,  in  the  In- 
dependent of  December  16,  1897,  where,  after  quoting 
our  first  answer,  he  says :  "Mark  the  egoism  of  it : — 
I  my,  my,  my,  me,  me,  my,  my,  my,  me,  me."  He 
thus  attacks  it  as  leading  to  spiritual  pride  and  egoism. 
We  reply  that  his  difficulty  is  not  with  the  Heidelberg 
but  with  the  New  Testament.  For  if  our  catechism  is 
wrong,  then  Paul  was  wrong  when  he  said :  "I  know 
whom  I  have  believed,"  and  Job  was  wrong  when  he 
said,  "I  know  that  my  Redeemer  liveth."  The  New  Testa- 
ment demands  such  assurance  of  faith  and  Christian 
testimony,  and  so  does  even  his  Shorter  catechism.  Such 
objections  have  no  standing.  I  greatly  fear  that  these 
eminent  divines  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  are  more 
affected  by  jealousy  of  the  Heidelberg,  lest  it  will,  by  its 
popularity,  replace  their  Shorter  catechism,  and  just 
because  of  this  very  experimental  character,  which  the 
Shorter  catechism  lacks. 

No,  the  combination  of  head-  and  heart- faith  in  the  \ 
Heidelberg,  of  intellectual  faith  and  personal  experience, 
has  been  one  of  the  most  striking-  peculiarities  of  our 
catechism.  The  Heidelberg  catechism,  though  it  knew  it 
not  then,  yet  solved  a  problem  that  it  has  taken  three 
centuries  for  the  world  and  the  church  to  finally  locate 
and  attempt  to  solve.     I   say  both  the  world  and  the 


298  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

church,  for  both  have  been  struggHng  at  the  same  prob- 
lem. 

And  first  as  to  the  world.  And  by  the  world,  I  mean 
the  world  as  purely  secular,  the  world  of  thought,  whose 
quintessence  is  philosophy.  For  this  world  of  thought 
has  been  ruled  for  two  centuries  by  what  is  called  in- 
tellectualism.  Everything  else  was  made  secondary  or 
ruled  out  of  court.  Logic  reigned.  Everything  must  be 
made  rational.  Pure  intellectualism  was  the  king.  And 
now  what  is  happening?  I  was  reading  just  the  other 
day  one  of  the  greatest  of  recent  books  of  today  on  phi- 
losophy and  what  does  it  say, — that  intellectualism  in  phi- 
losophy has  had  its  day  and  that  experimentalism  is  com- 
ing in  to  correct  its  errors.  The  appearance  of  Professor 
James'  great  book  on  "Varieties  of  Religious  Experi- 
ence," is  epochal  and  proves  this.  Its  grant  of  the 
truth  of  experimentalism  has  tolled  the  death-knell  of 
intellectualism.  For  it  has  been  found  out  that  intellec- 
tualism left  out  many  problems  and  warped  the  answers 
to  others.  It  is  therefore  bankrupt.  For  emotionalism 
is  just  as  important  as  intellectualism  and  the  heart  is  as 
important  as  the  head,  indeed  the  springs  of  action  are 
in  the  heart.  Why,  what  philosophy  has  been  trying  to 
find  out  for  these  centuries  and  is  just  now  announcing 
as  a  great  discovery,  the  Heidelberg  catechism  declared 
three  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago,  as  it  made  emotion- 
alism as  important  as  intellectualism  in  its  philosophy  of 
religion. 

Well  the  Church  has  also  had  the  same  problem  of 
intellectualism.  She  continually  inclined  to  become 
merely  intellectual.  Faith  and  experience  became  so 
divorced  that  she  had  much  dead  orthodoxy,  that  is, 
her  ministers  and  members  were  orthodox  enough,  but 
religion  had  little  effect  on  their  lives.     Theology  con- 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  CATECHISM       299 

stantly  tended  to  become  scholastic.  Logic  ruled  in  the- 
ology. The  great  problem  of  the  Church  has  been  to 
make  her  faith  living  and  not  merely  intellectual,  to  unite 
faith  and  life. 

And  now  permit  me  to  call  your  attention  to  one 
of  the  most  wonderful  romances  in  Church  history,  for 
even  theology  has  its  romances.  In  the  eighteenth 
century,  Count  Zinzendorf  was  converted,  it  is  said,  by 
seeing  a  painting  of  Christ  on  the  cross  with  the  words 
under  it. 

"All  this  I  did  for  thee, 
What  hast  Thou  done  for  me?" 

He  ever  after  made  the  Christ  and  the  cross  central 
in  faith,  even  exaggerating  it  so  as  to  make  it  offensively 
prominent  in  its  crassness.  But  he  impressed  the  promi- 
nence of  the  cross  on  the  Moravians  who  ever  after  em- 
phasized it. 

Over  a  century  ago,  a  Reformed  minister  in  Germany, 
an  army  chaplain  named  Schleiermacher,  was  so  afraid 
his  son  would  be  led  astray  by  the  rationalism  in  the 
universities,  that  he  sent  him  to  the  Moravian  School 
at  Barby.  The  young  man  remained  there  some  time. 
But  he  was  naturally  inclined  to  liberal  theology  and  the 
Moravians  were  too  strict  in  their  rules  and  too  narrow 
in  their  doctrines  for  him,  so  he  ran  away  to  Halle  uni- 
versity and  there  drank  of  rationalism  to  the  deepest 
fill. 

But  though  he  wandered  far  from  old  orthodoxy, 
there  were  two  things  that  he  had  learned  at  Barby  he 
never  forgot.  One  was  that  Christ  was  central  in  the- 
ology. And  that  idea  he  stamped  on  the  theology  of  the 
nineteenth  century.  Theology  must  centre  in  Christ. 
That  idea  created  a  new  era  in  theology,  as  it  made  it 


300  THE  HEIDELBERG  CATECHISM 

Christocentric.  And  the  other  idea  that  Schleiermacher 
got  from  the  Moravians  was  the  one  to  which  especially 
we  refer  for  our  purpose.  Schleiermacher  taught  that 
theology  was  not  a  mere  matter  of  the  head.  He  taught 
that  the  centre  and  basis  of  theology  was  a  feeling, — 
the  feeling  of  dependence  on  God.  He  made  that  feeling 
the  sum  and  substance  of  religion.  And  that  idea  has 
revolutionized  all  modern  theology.  Schleiermacher 
solved  the  problem  that  had  troubled  the  Church  for  many 
centuries.  He  taught  that  religion  was  not  a  mere  mat- 
ter of  doctrine,  but  was  of  the  heart.  In  a  word,  where 
before  orthodoxy  was  cold  and  dead,  it  now  became  living 
and  feeling.  Now  in  thus  praising  Schleiermacher,  I  do 
not  mean  to  say  that  I  agree  with  him  in  all  his  theology. 
He  makes  too  many  concessions  in  it  to  the  pantheists. 
But  he  made  the  discovery  of  a  principle  about  religion 
that  is  all  important.  I  am  also  willing  to  grant  that 
often  this  very  principle  that  religion  is  a  feeling  of  de- 
pendence of  God,  has  been  taken  advantage  by  emotion- 
alism and  even  by  rationalists.  There  are  dangers  in  his 
position.  But  at  the  same  time  he  struck  a  true  key- 
note when  he  declared  that  emotional  religion  was  as 
necessary  as  intellectual ;  and  that  to  keep  religion  warm 
and  living  the  heart  must  beat  in  it. 

And  so  now  theological  thought,  like  philosophical 
thought,  has  given  up  the  old  intellectualism  so  that 
there  may  be  no  more  dead  orthodoxy.  It  aims  to  make 
room  for  the  feelings  so  that  faith  may  be  vital.  Why, 
my  dear  friends,  that  is  what  the  Heidelberg  catechism 
said  three  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago.  It  made  religion 
a  matter  of  the  heart  as  well  as  of  the  head.  It  is  true 
some  Reformed  theologians  have  tried  to  intellectualize 
it,  but  there  it  is, — its  emotionalism,  warm  and  living. 

Now  this  is  the  reason  why  our  catechism  is  the  most 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  CATECHISM 


301 


modern  of  the  catechisms  and  the  one  most  up-to-date. 
This  is  the  reason  why  it  has  been  so  popular  in  our 
own  Church  all  these  centuries  and  is  so  popular  today. 
This  is  the  reason  why,  when,  in  our  own  Church  a 
century  ago,  some  of  our  ministers  published  their  own 
private  catechisms  for  their  catechumens,  yet  these  were 
all  set  aside  and  our  Church  went  back  entirely  to  the 
Heidelberg.  These  other  catechisms  did  not  have  the 
warmth  and  personal  faith  of  the  Heidelberg.  This  is 
the  reason  why  a  Presbyterian  divine  once  said  to  the 
writer,  "If  our  Shorter  catechism  had  a  little  of  the  Hei- 
delberg it  would  be  better,"  and  he  added:  "If  we  had 
a  catechism  that  would  combine  the  excellence  of  the 
Shorter  and  the  Heidelberg  it  would  be  the  ideal  cate- 
chism." 

My  hearers,  when  the  Heidelberg  catechism  was  born, 
it  started  a  new  era,  it  set  a  new  pace  for  the  world.  It 
was  like  the  flaring  up  of  a  new  star.  It  was  the  most 
significant  event  in  the  history  of  catechisms,  before  and 
after  it. 


Pnrceton   Theologicil  Seniin<ify-Speei 


1    1012  01079  6730 


°^^LORD    »3^^^^r7;-;r. 


in  USA 


